Pomers was on to something - scripted randomness in DBC14

[ellgieff]

I've deemed this to be true from what I've been playing of the game.

When batting against a leg spinner and I play a cut shot to a ball pitching on off (maybe without the necessary height). Then being caught by the wicket keeper who essentially 'premeditated' the edge about a foot and a half away from his usual positioning, prior the ball even bouncing. It demonstrates at least to me, that the game isn't unscripted or at the very least the outcome is predetermined.

It sees that my shot selection is bad for the line and length of the delivery and that in turns causes the keeper to know when the ball is going. Ending in my dismissal.

This system isn't bad necessarily; it just isn't hidden well. Uber-warping to me doesn't cause annoyance at my poor shot selection, but rather annoyance that the game has superman fielders. It makes the game feel unfair. Leading to all the superman fielding complaints when really it is poorly hidden, somewhat predetermined gameplay which people aren't acknowledging.

Hopefully that comes across right it is rather difficult to convey the scenario.

Yeah, nah - it's pretty clear to me that it's not a scripting issue, but a graphics issue complemented with an (acknowledged) issue of the fielders moving too quickly.

The fielders move too quickly, so they get to balls they shouldn't - and then the animation engine has to represent that. The fielders move speed has been fixed in patch #2 , so I expect to see some changes after that.

The other thing that may make stuff feel scripted is that the batsmen have all apparently drilled a hole down the centre of their bats and filled it with lead, so balls come way quicker off the bat and travel further than they probably should.

I've see an AI batsman late cut a spinner over third man for 6. I don't believe there's a batsman in the world strong enough to actually do that ...

 

[Chief]

I'll say it again: EVERYTHING in a game is scripted, otherwise it wouldn't happen. Physics itself is scripted. It is determined by a set of mathematical rules.

 

[BigAntStudios]

Whenever the ball leaves the hand of the bowler the fielders "know" it's flight down the pitch and approximate their movement based on that, they then have more definite knowledge at the point of impact with the bat, far greater than a human can because the physics for the flight of the ball can be pre-calculated exactly at that point. You'll notice if there is a collision with a player that it is recalculated again and the player react accordingly, it is recalculated for any collision be it bat, ground, stumps, etc.

----------

I'll say it again: EVERYTHING in a game is scripted, otherwise it wouldn't happen. Physics itself is scripted. It is determined by a set of mathematical rules.

In the same way that Lotteries are, given the knowledge of all of the rules (script) it is a result that can be calculated.

Tomorrow's weather, well we could never calculate or predict that with any great accuracy it seems

 

[Chief]

Physics has no random element. It's a set of rules that says "if this happens, then this happens" and if the inputs are all identical, then then outcomes are identical. Every time.
Weather and lotteries don't have those rules.

 

[ellgieff]

Physics has no random element. It's a set of rules that says "if this happens, then this happens" and if the inputs are all identical, then then outcomes are identical. Every time.
Weather and lotteries don't have those rules.

Not quite, man. See also: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

*edit* to put that another way, one of the contentions around chaotic systems (like weather, and the action of the balls bouncing in a lottery wheel) is that given enough information about the initial state of the system we could predict the results - and another is that if the inputs are identical, the results would be.

One of the things Heisenberg points out is that we can't know the initial state of a system perfectly. It actually sets an upper bound for what we can know about the universe with certainty.

And I dearly love that on a forum about a cricket game, I get to discuss chaos and (briefly) subatomic physics ...

 

[Chief]

One of the things Heisenberg points out is that we can't know the initial state of a system perfectly. It actually sets an upper bound for what we can know about the universe with certainty.

My point is that for this to be valid in the context of a piece of computer programming, then it would have to be programmed in, in order to manifest itself.

Hence, scripted randomness.

 

[ellgieff]

My point is that for this to be valid in the context of a piece of computer programming, then it would have to be programmed in, in order to manifest itself.

Hence, scripted randomness.

Scripting means something different in this context, though. The suggestion is that occasionally there is an additional script that says "sorry, son, but you're screwed"

I can understand why people feel it is this way. For the umpteenth time, on my 6th or 7th career start (I'm trying to actually get better at the game, rather than just have my stats improve to the point that the game gets easier) I've just missed a ball that pitch outside leg stump, and crashed into middle.

There is _no_ explanation as to why this one got me out, when the three or four similar deliveries I'd just received I'd played roughly the same way with a different result.

It ends up feeling like "nah, son, almighty tweak you, you're simply out". I've had similar experiences where I get a run of three or four deliveries where my guy suddenly starts missing.

It's the lack of explanation that then leads to people thinking there's something else going on. If the game told me I was late on the shot, then cool. If it told me I played down the wrong line (I'd want the stick inputs displayed, here, because where they ended up I should've simply pushed the ball away to mid-on), cool.

Because the only actual result I have is "you're out", and the graphical representation on replay can't be trusted (I've seen replays where the bat warps around the ball in order to let it through to the stumps) people end up feeling like the hand of god has reached down and touched them with the you're-almighty tweaked stick.

And while I understand your point with respect to chaotic systems and Heisenberg from a theoretical programming perspective - I've worked on large and complicated software developments.

Sometimes, the end result looks like a chaotic system from the outside, because things can interact in unexpected ways inside the black box. Sometimes things can look this way to the people who have developed the software. I've been on enough "no, that can't possibly have happened" bug-hunts to be sure of this

*edit* OMDog, the language filter and replace on this site is awesome. Thanks, admins!

 

[TripleM]

There is _no_ explanation as to why this one got me out, when the three or four similar deliveries I'd just received I'd played roughly the same way with a different result.

It's the lack of explanation that then leads to people thinking there's something else going on. If the game told me I was late on the shot, then cool. If it told me I played down the wrong line (I'd want the stick inputs displayed, here, because where they ended up I should've simply pushed the ball away to mid-on), cool.

This. A large proportion of the times I get out, I have no idea what I did wrong.

 

[BigAntStudios]

As far as I know nothing in this world is random, there is no such thing as "random", all things are predictable if you know all of the inputs and rules for the output.

No idea what the point of this conversation is.

 

[ellgieff]

This. A large proportion of the times I get out, I have no idea what I did wrong.

I think sometimes it could be that I got an "unplayable" one - which I'd accept as an explanation, if the stick inputs and timing all makes it look like I did everything right.

Another thing I think could work (if we don't have On Screen displays after a stroke) is having the commentary simply say it:

"He was late on that stroke"

"Played it early and presented a simple chance"

"Oh, playing down the wrong line, bowler gave him no chance there".

That kind of thing ...

As far as I know nothing in this world is random, there is no such thing as "random", all things are predictable if you know all of the inputs and rules for the output.

No idea what the point of this conversation is.

The ineffable nature of the universe, man. That's the point of this conversation.

You should've taken the red pill ...

:P

 

[BigAntStudios]

I'm a vegetarian, I am acutely aware at every burger joint or BBQ that I've attended that I've taken the wrong coloured pill

----------

We do not premeditate the outcome.

 

[ellgieff]

We do not premeditate the outcome.

I'm sure that's true

You may be able to see from the below why people would think that wasn't the case. Also, sack your third umpire, the guy is useless.

I'll also put this vid (and the one I have of the DRS, showing the third umpire also thought it was out) in the bug reports thread

*edit* Just to be clear, this is video of the interactive replay where I was just given out, caught behind - obviously I reviewed the decision because there was no way I was even close to the ball ... the third umpire agreed with the guy on the field.

 

[BigAntStudios]

There may be a bug that the ball has been incorrectly recorded as being previously hit by the bat but that doesn't say anything about the physics nor premeditation.

 

[ellgieff]

There may be a bug that the ball has been incorrectly recorded as being previously hit by the bat but that doesn't say anything about the physics.

Don't misunderstand me, man - the only question I've got about your physics is what value you're using for mu (I think it's too low, that's why the edges almost always go fine) and how much mass you've given the bats (or at least, how much force they impart on the ball) because I've seen a guy late cut a spinner for 6 over third man.

I started out at the top saying "the game isn't scripted, you're seeing graphical glitches". I still think that's true (although I think the bug I struck above is, as you say, something slightly different)

But you can see why someone might think it was scripted, if they miss the ball and get given out - and the review option also shows they clearly missed the ball, but the decision stands?

 

[BigAntStudios]

No I can't see a bug like that in the video being thought of as scripting.

If it was scripting i'd script it to hit the bat