AI Gameplay decision, flawed logic

[MKG1734]

Okay, I am manager of a team, playing against an AI controlled team.


Situation:


Bottom 9
Tie Score
1 Out
Runners 2nd and 3rd
AI team in the field, RHP on the mound


AI's decision making:
#1: Walk a quality LH to load the bases, creating a force at the plate as well as setting up possible double plays
#2: I pinch hit for my strikeout prone RH hitter with a contact LH hitter
#3: AI plays INF in, OF in


Thus far....the AI has played this situation correctly; however, this is where the AI decision error is made.


Batter hits a groundball to 1st baseman. 1st baseman flips to pitcher covering first. Batter is out; however, winning run scores.


The AI should only attempt to make a play at the plate here, as a non-double play ground ball ends the game (if a play is not made on the lead runner attempting to score).


With that said, what information needs to be posted in the bug report forum in this case in order to have the development team look into and attempt to correct this?

[The Wolf]

You should go dig up the threads over the last five years explaining this

[MKG1734]

I found a thread that references the winning run being on FIRST base, but NOT the winning run being on THIRD base.

Furthermore, the answer from Markus Heinsohn here:
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...24-post19.html

does not provide an answer to the above reported problem.

The situation:

Inning: Bottom 9
Score: Tied
Situation: Bases loaded, 1 out (therefore, winning run on third base)
AI: Defense In, Outfield In
Outcome: Groundball to 1st baseman; 1st baseman ignores play at the plate and instead flips ball to pitcher covering 1st. Batter is second out, winning run scores

Is there another thread than this? Because this is the only thread that even slightly resembles this in which a developer explains this....yet the answer does not even pertain to this situation

[subtle]

I think what he's saying is the AI made the correct positional shifts but the logic on the play didn't work correctly. In that situation in real life, any ground ball should result in a throw home.

Situation: Bases loaded, 1 out (therefore, winning run on third base)

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

I found a thread that references the winning run being on FIRST base, but NOT the winning run being on THIRD base.

Furthermore, the answer from Markus Heinsohn here:
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...24-post19.html

does not provide an answer to the above reported problem.

The situation:

Inning: Bottom 9
Score: Tied
Situation: Bases loaded, 1 out (therefore, winning run on third base)
AI: Defense In, Outfield In
Outcome: Groundball to 1st baseman; 1st baseman ignores play at the plate and instead flips ball to pitcher covering 1st. Batter is second out, winning run scores

Is there another thread than this? Because this is the only thread that even slightly resembles this in which a developer explains this....yet the answer does not even pertain to this situation

I think that is a mis-type. He means third base I'm sure. The winning run on 1B would never require a throw home as described.

[Lou Gehrig]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

When the infield is in and the tying / winning run is on first in the last inning, the fielder always throws home, no matter what. Even when the infield is not in and the game would end on the run, the fielder throws home, although the chance of course is low to get the runner.

- 2/8/2012

When I read this I can't help but think Markus meant to say runner on third. Why else would he speak of a low chance to get the runner when throwing home?

[Huckleberry]

Regardless of what Markus meant the OP's example indicates that the 1B did not throw home. So it's a bug if Markus' explanation meant what we think it meant.

[RchW]

Yes and it should be reported with evidence such as a PbP screenshot and/or game log.

[The Wolf]

It's been gone over before...

[MKG1734]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

It's been gone over before...

You say its been gone over before...meaning what?

Meaning that it has been confirmed that there is a flaw in the AI logic and it cannot be fixed? Meaning it is believed there is no flaw in the AI logic, yet, I can show that the play did occur as I stated?

I found one thread that Markus Heinsohn directly replied to regarding this...are you aware of others that occurred later whereby he negated the statement I attached above?
What do you mean, specifically, when you say it has been gone over before?

[rpriske]

Meaning it is not a new complaint. The classic one is where the winning run is going home and the fielder cuts off the ball coming in from the outfield and tries to get the guy going to third.

If I understand correctly, this is not changing the results at all. The game has already determined that the fielder CAN'T get the guy at home so goes for plan B.

It just makes for bad PbP realism.

[MKG1734]

The game has already determined that the fielder CAN'T get the guy at home so goes for plan B ... It just makes for bad PbP realism

Can this be confirmed to be an accurate statement by the development team? Because, while I understand this statement and it does make sense, it also seems to be in direct conflict with Markus Heinsohn's statement:

When the infield is in and the tying / winning run is on [third] in the last inning, the fielder always throws home, no matter what

Not to mention being in direct conflict with the results of the play noted in the original post...

[RchW]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

Can this be confirmed to be an accurate statement by the development team? Because, while I understand this statement and it does make sense, it also seems to be in direct conflict with Markus Heinsohn's statement:

That's why a bug report with details is needed. It's not the accuracy of the statement that is of concern it is documentation that the coding of that base/out state is not working as designed

[Lou Gehrig]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

Can this be confirmed to be an accurate statement by the development team? Because, while I understand this statement and it does make sense, it also seems to be in direct conflict with Markus Heinsohn's statement

Why don't you just report it in the bug thread with proper documentation instead of belaboring the point?
Markus can address it when he returns if he chooses but as been stated..."it's been gone over before".

[MKG1734]

Originally Posted by Lou Gehrig

Why don't you just report it in the bug thread with proper documentation instead of belaboring the point?
Markus can address it when he returns if he chooses but as been stated..."it's been gone over before".

I already did...no need to be snarky. I'm only trying to help an issue (if one exists) be fixed. And, my statement previously indicates... if it has been "gone over before" .... was there a resolution because if the information that The Wolf was vaguely alluding to with regard to his statement, "its been gone over before" was in fact Markus Heinsohn's comment - then, no, the issue was not resolved and I would continue with the bug report. If, instead, there was more information that I was not aware of that addresses this (as implied by The Wolf, but not elaborated on with evidence)...then that would be useful.

I have only been on the forum since last year. However; when I post (especially lately) it is with an effort to seek answers to questions I have, and to point out issues that may exist in the game. When the response from community vets is both irritation (that a flaw is pointed out) and resistance (to a problem existing) (and yes, I can provide documentation where resistance was spurned by an actual developer that admitted something was, in fact, not working properly) it gets old and tiring. I paid for the game, just like you did.

In case you felt the thread was too belaboring to read in full, let me summarize:

Me: Pose potential issue, ask what documentation needs to be present in a bug report to accurately identify the issue and help the development team

Next: I was told to search the threads explaining this.

Me: My search indicated that the development team stated that what I saw in the game would never happen. I posted this information to query whether this was the information that was referenced above.

Next: After some back and forth by community members, I was informed that, yes, I should post it with the proper documenation

Next: A community member stated "its been gone over before..." seemingly indicating that there was no need for a bug report. However, again, no specifics were given.

Me: I asked what was meant by the above statement as I could not find immediate reference to it.

Next: A community member stated information that was directly in conflict with a written declaration by the development team. A separate community member stated to post it in the bug reports thread.

Me: I posted it in the bug reports thread.

Next: Lou Gehrig came on here with a snarky comment...and then references that it has "been gone over before..." The reference seems to continue to mean one of two things (neither of which has been clarified in this thread): #1: The specific issue I posted about has been gone over and either resolved or persists, or #2: those referencing this are not understanding that the post by the development team is in direct conflict with the results the sim engine produced.

Me: I replied. Furthermore, the resistance that a 'new' member feels to posing potential issues is quite tiresome and, frankly, counter-productive to progress.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

I have only been on the forum since last year. However; when I post (especially lately) it is with an effort to seek answers to questions I have, and to point out issues that may exist in the game. When the response from community vets is both irritation (that a flaw is pointed out) and resistance (to a problem existing) (and yes, I can provide documentation where resistance was spurned by an actual developer that admitted something was, in fact, not working properly) it gets old and tiring. I paid for the game, just like you did.

I get your point. I really do. But why spend so much time and space focusing on two "Vets" who in your words were irritated and resistance? I saw comments that seemed to provide insight and help. Isn't that enough??

[tcblcommish]

What I don't get is that the things that are big pointed out are being talked about over and over and over and it's posted in this forum which is a bug and not in the proper forum. When it's a constant and it's not being done correctly, people get irritated.

Doesn't it say somewhere not to post bugs in this forum and to post them in the proper thread. I might be wrong but I thought I read that before

[Lou Gehrig]

Originally Posted by RchW

Yes and it should be reported with evidence such as a PbP screenshot and/or game log.

Originally Posted by RchW

That's why a bug report with details is needed. It's not the accuracy of the statement that is of concern it is documentation that the coding of that base/out state is not working as designed

Originally Posted by Lou Gehrig

Why don't you just report it in the bug thread with proper documentation instead of belaboring the point?
Markus can address it when he returns if he chooses but as been stated..."it's been gone over before".

Originally Posted by MKG1734

I already did...

No you have not reported it with proper documentation.
RchW advised you what to supply Markus with to look into this. Wolf advised you it has been gone over before. Rpriske explained it to you in detail.

I appreciate your effort to find a bug but you don't appear to be listening.

[Toast]

Originally Posted by MKG1734

I already did...no need to be snarky. I'm only trying to help an issue (if one exists) be fixed. And, my statement previously indicates... if it has been "gone over before" .... was there a resolution because if the information that The Wolf was vaguely alluding to with regard to his statement, "its been gone over before" was in fact Markus Heinsohn's comment - then, no, the issue was not resolved and I would continue with the bug report. If, instead, there was more information that I was not aware of that addresses this (as implied by The Wolf, but not elaborated on with evidence)...then that would be useful.

I have only been on the forum since last year. However; when I post (especially lately) it is with an effort to seek answers to questions I have, and to point out issues that may exist in the game. When the response from community vets is both irritation (that a flaw is pointed out) and resistance (to a problem existing) (and yes, I can provide documentation where resistance was spurned by an actual developer that admitted something was, in fact, not working properly) it gets old and tiring. I paid for the game, just like you did.

In case you felt the thread was too belaboring to read in full, let me summarize:

Me: Pose potential issue, ask what documentation needs to be present in a bug report to accurately identify the issue and help the development team

Next: I was told to search the threads explaining this.

Me: My search indicated that the development team stated that what I saw in the game would never happen. I posted this information to query whether this was the information that was referenced above.

Next: After some back and forth by community members, I was informed that, yes, I should post it with the proper documenation

Next: A community member stated "its been gone over before..." seemingly indicating that there was no need for a bug report. However, again, no specifics were given.

Me: I asked what was meant by the above statement as I could not find immediate reference to it.

Next: A community member stated information that was directly in conflict with a written declaration by the development team. A separate community member stated to post it in the bug reports thread.

Me: I posted it in the bug reports thread.

Next: Lou Gehrig came on here with a snarky comment...and then references that it has "been gone over before..." The reference seems to continue to mean one of two things (neither of which has been clarified in this thread): #1: The specific issue I posted about has been gone over and either resolved or persists, or #2: those referencing this are not understanding that the post by the development team is in direct conflict with the results the sim engine produced.

Me: I replied. Furthermore, the resistance that a 'new' member feels to posing potential issues is quite tiresome and, frankly, counter-productive to progress.

I posted an issue a while back and was called every name under the sun for doing so ... in particular by those you have responded too in your post. I'm sorry you've been subjected to this but it best to just let it ride. Accept the fact the OF threw to first because it was determined he had little chance of getting the runner out at home. Whether this was calculated before the batter actually came up to the plate is of course another matter entirely ... but something had to be written down hence the play to first.

Toast

[RchW]

Yeah since everything is pre-determined there is no point reporting bugs. I get it now.