Pomers was on to something - scripted randomness in DBC14

[balkeet]

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 point is 'are we there yet?' (26 june)

 

[TripleM]

I remember watching a video explaining how shooting works in the NBA 2k games. If you're wide open and time it perfectly, it will go in 100% of the time. Slightly mistimed, the percentage is still high but less than 100%. As your timing gets worse, or opponents apply various amounts of pressure, or you're shooting in a bad region for that particular shooter, etc etc, the percentage slowly drops off. So you could attempt the exact same shot 5 times in a row, but only make it 4 times. Makes perfect sense and works, despite fitting the same definitions of 'scripting'.

Is a similar sort of idea being used here? If so, that would explain why you could attempt the same shot time and time again and have it work - until the one time you suddenly edge it. The combination of footwork, timing, shot choice, and confidence gives you a probability of getting an edge, and once in a while it's going to happen.

Would definitely love a future version to have some sort of indicator like ellgieff mentioned above so that you could know what you did wrong and use that to improve. That's the only reason I'm interested in how it works - so I know what mistake I made and what I should have done instead.

 

[BigAntStudios]

We need to do a lot better with the feedback for sure.

 

[ellgieff]

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

Heh, fair enough - me too

Scripting just tends to be the first place people "go" when sports games don't do the things they want them to do. Watched it for years on the MLB: The Show boards - so I know there are many people who would assume that the bug above wasn't simply a bug, but was exposing the "you're out this ball!" script.

 

[Chief]

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"

Ahh. Right. So what they actually mean is that the game is hard coded to let you get to a certain point and then stuffs you regardless of what you do?

It's amazing how many psychological things like that go on in games: People seeing something that just isn't there. I totally agree with you that given no other reason people assume that they are being "cheated". When there's no other law to explain it, we usually turn to Murphy's.

Having said that, I will confess; Angry at so many people moaning that they were getting unrealistic scores all the time and that this was something to do with how the AI was badly programmed, I once designed a system whereby the difficulty would change based on the batsman's average. So for, say, Ricky Ponting the difficulty would be very easy until he reached 30 or so, be medium by the 40s and hard by the 80s. By the time you passed the player's top score ever, it was at maximum difficulty. Same would apply to a tail ender, but in a much quicker period.

My theory was that, as long as the player didn't realise it was happening, because players would score a realistic score more often then the player would not feel cheated. I'd be intrigued to know whether people would consider this "wrong" or "right" (and I suspect I know, hence why it was never used!)

----------

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.

Well for me it was trying to understand why people felt aggrieved at something that wasn't there. And to reach the conclusion that you just said: the answer is probably because they do not know the inputs and outputs and so think something random is happening. So if the feedback is improved then maybe that can be eliminated!

 

[ellgieff]

Ahh. Right. So what they actually mean is that the game is hard coded to let you get to a certain point and then stuffs you regardless of what you do?

It's amazing how many psychological things like that go on in games: People seeing something that just isn't there. I totally agree with you that given no other reason people assume that they are being "cheated". When there's no other law to explain it, we usually turn to Murphy's.

Having said that, I will confess; Angry at so many people moaning that they were getting unrealistic scores all the time and that this was something to do with how the AI was badly programmed, I once designed a system whereby the difficulty would change based on the batsman's average. So for, say, Ricky Ponting the difficulty would be very easy until he reached 30 or so, be medium by the 40s and hard by the 80s. By the time you passed the player's top score ever, it was at maximum difficulty. Same would apply to a tail ender, but in a much quicker period.

My theory was that, as long as the player didn't realise it was happening, because players would score a realistic score more often then the player would not feel cheated. I'd be intrigued to know whether people would consider this "wrong" or "right" (and I suspect I know, hence why it was never used!)

I don't know about other people. I'd consider it an interesting model (and a creative solution, nice job), but I think it's likely to run into difficulties with also providing the outliers that should occur occasionally.

Sometimes tail-enders do get big scores. Sometimes great batting teams are bundled out for not very much.

I certainly don't think it's cheating, because it can't be cheating - we're talking about a single player game, right? There can't be cheating (I've never understood people feeling cheated by a single player game, although I have seen years of that kind of complaint)

It's an adaptive difficulty model, that actually makes a lot of sense to me

 

[Chief]

I don't know about other people. I'd consider it an interesting model (and a creative solution, nice job), but I think it's likely to run into difficulties with also providing the outliers that should occur occasionally.

Sometimes tail-enders do get big scores. Sometimes great batting teams are bundled out for not very much.

I certainly don't think it's cheating, because it can't be cheating - we're talking about a single player game, right? There can't be cheating (I've never understood people feeling cheated by a single player game, although I have seen years of that kind of complaint)

It's an adaptive difficulty model, that actually makes a lot of sense to me

I think it just feels to a lot of people "dishonest".

For years I played a football game and was always *convinced* that it was rigged so that more goals happened in dramatic places, especially in injury time. We argued about it for years that it was psychological, but years later I discovered that this was *exactly* what was happening - in injury time all defenders/goalkeepers attributes were reduced significantly to mimic what tends to happen in real life, where nerves are frayed.

At first I was outraged, but actually I came to think this was a better system after all. My friend is still furious.

 

[cricket_online]

We need to do a lot better with the feedback for sure.

Ross, is it possible to add an optional feedback mechanism with respect to timing and footwork in the game in the next patch? This would allow us to turn on the optional feedback HUD in a match and see where we are going wrong, i.e. wrong footwork or early/late timing. Currently there's not much help to help us improve.

 

[Ajh1977]

I remember playing graham Gooch cricket on the Amiga and I was convinced that the type of batsman they were ( defensive, moderate or attacking I think we're the choices) made a huge difference to how you got out. It was almost as if, the game got you out if you scored too quickly with a defensive batsman or too slowly with an attacking one. All of a sudden the glance down leg you'd been playing with ease was caught by a superhuman wicket keeper! And I doubt that timing and physics could have been implemented properly in such a small powered machine.

 

[Frostyvegi]

I'd be intrigued to know whether people would consider this "wrong" or "right" (and I suspect I know, hence why it was never used!)

Personally I think it's wrong, it's a simplistic method of programing difficulty, and why I absolutely hate any car racing game that uses this method (as mentioned above).

"Oh, you're driving perfectly and winning by half a lap.. well, all the AI cars are suddenly gonna get nitrous oxide an will drive top speed around corners and will not crash until they catch you, then when they get in front, they'll turn into a bunch of Mr Magoo's.

 

[Blinder]

Scripting is rife in the gaming world. Probably more in this day and age than ever before cos games are so complex. Its not Pong anymore.

Just type in "FIFA" and "scripting" and look what comes up...EA initially started as being very quick to offer weak explanation, or retort to any suggestion of scripting and eventually ended up banning people from talking about it on forums.

There were previous footy games that were wrecked by rubber-banding mechanisms. I remember one footy game was great to play, but the rubber banding was a game breaker. I think even BA's own AFL product had some catch up logic where suddenly it became impossible to stop the opposition from kicking goals.

Sure, I think Big Ant's explanations mostly ease my concerns, and it will be interesting to see what effect patch 2 has on things. But I've played a lot against the AI and I can see why people's eyebrows are raised. Some thing Ive noted for example:

- AI seems to go out of its way to score at a set run rate or achieve a set score and not more or less. If this means losing a stack of wickets after a very good start, tailenders putting on huge partnerships after a big collapse, or AI playing and missing every ball despite setting attacking fields with heaps of gaps to deliberately entice them to score faster.
- Outside of career mode, its harder to score runs with your number 4 than with your number 9 batsman.
- Outside of career mode, the human team seems to always get bowled out around the same over mark.
- There is no feedback gauge. Just like having the radar hidden on racing games, are they trying to hide something?
- Input not matching output: attempting an on-drive, holding the direction of an on-drive yet the computer plays a leg glance into the mits of square leg.
- Very suss umpiring decisions, as discussed before
- Hawkeye: the line of the ball always seems to straighten if it pitches in line with the stumps, even if initially it looked as though the ball was angling away.

 

[jmarcf]

To me I don't think there is "scripting".

I love football as well but cannot stand FIFA any more that is totally scripted. You are playing in career mode and the team at the bottom of league plays like the best team in the world and vice versa for the teams at the top of the league.

Or one game (or even half a game) your team is passing and playing well then all of a sudden your team cannot even pass the ball to the player next to them.

 

[Chief]

It's interesting how people view it. I think it largely comes down to how it's presented, and how visible it is. For me FIFA has always been the WWE of football games: mostly style over substance, fun rather than skill. PES (used to be) the one that serious people played as it didn't feel like it was constantly helping you out.

With that comparison I mean like WWE versus watching wrestling - the one that is scripted is actually usually much more exciting and entertaining. It ensures that the most entertaining outcome is reached, but lots of people rolls their eyes and say "it's fake". Of course it is. In the same way that Game of Thrones is. Or Citizen Kane. Or (insert something fictional that you like here) Does it matter if *you* don't know what's going to happen?

FIFA and WWE have comparatively had much bigger followings, so I would surmise that the majority are happy enough to go along with the conceit?

 

[barmyarmy]

Game of Thrones is fictional?
But I just got an e-mail from the Iron Bank this morning asking for my password...

 

[Acid Burn]

Scripting is rife in the gaming world. Probably more in this day and age than ever before cos games are so complex. Its not Pong anymore.

Just type in "FIFA" and "scripting" and look what comes up...EA initially started as being very quick to offer weak explanation, or retort to any suggestion of scripting and eventually ended up banning people from talking about it on forums.

There were previous footy games that were wrecked by rubber-banding mechanisms. I remember one footy game was great to play, but the rubber banding was a game breaker. I think even BA's own AFL product had some catch up logic where suddenly it became impossible to stop the opposition from kicking goals.

Sure, I think Big Ant's explanations mostly ease my concerns, and it will be interesting to see what effect patch 2 has on things. But I've played a lot against the AI and I can see why people's eyebrows are raised. Some thing Ive noted for example:

- AI seems to go out of its way to score at a set run rate or achieve a set score and not more or less. If this means losing a stack of wickets after a very good start, tailenders putting on huge partnerships after a big collapse, or AI playing and missing every ball despite setting attacking fields with heaps of gaps to deliberately entice them to score faster.
- Outside of career mode, its harder to score runs with your number 4 than with your number 9 batsman.
- Outside of career mode, the human team seems to always get bowled out around the same over mark.
- There is no feedback gauge. Just like having the radar hidden on racing games, are they trying to hide something?
- Input not matching output: attempting an on-drive, holding the direction of an on-drive yet the computer plays a leg glance into the mits of square leg.
- Very suss umpiring decisions, as discussed before
- Hawkeye: the line of the ball always seems to straighten if it pitches in line with the stumps, even if initially it looked as though the ball was angling away.

Very good Post here , and I must concur fully with the abovementioned points.