AI Gameplay decision, flawed logic

[tcblcommish]

Originally Posted by Toast

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 running 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

Good lord, here we go again

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by Toast

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 running 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

I disagree. It's best to report it in the bug thread which the OP did. Many bugs do get addressed and fixed. Some, like having to sub for an injury to pitcher after the inning is over, are not currently fixable but at least are captured and responded too.

Is it frustrating to experience some Vets responses as unwelcoming? Definitely. However, from someone who has played this franchise for 6+ years, it's the questioning and bug reporting by users of all experience levels that has improved this game dramatically.

[tcblcommish]

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=251918

Hope this posted right, this is on my phone but if it did, doesn't this say enough?

[tcblcommish]

By all means, post things that you see are screwy and people will discuss, even the vets however if you are posting things like the same thing over and over with different names and not listening to the people that do try to help, things get derailed quick. If it's the same person posting over and over similar things they will get hostile treatment from people.

Discuss things for sure. If you think it's a bug, post it in the appropriate spot.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

I disagree. It's best to report it in the bug thread which the OP did. Many bugs do get addressed and fixed. Some, like having to sub for an injury to pitcher after the inning is over, are not currently fixable but at least are captured and responded too.

Is it frustrating to experience some Vets responses as unwelcoming? Definitely. However, from someone who has played this franchise for 6+ years, it's the questioning and bug reporting by users of all experience levels that has improved this game dramatically.

Asking someone to properly document observed bugs isn't bad form or unwelcoming. I can probably dig up 20 threads where a such a request has been ignored or met with scorn from posters with "alternative theories" about how the game works. If people choose not to give information that is asked for repeatedly they really have no cause for complaint.

[Toast]

My issue is not whether the sim is or is not pre-determine but to keep an eye out against the possibility that it is pre-determined. I think the sim is fantastic but that's not going to stop me from looking at it - at times - with a critical eye regardless of the criticism that may result from doing so.

Toast

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by RchW

Asking someone to properly document observed bugs isn't bad form or unwelcoming. I can probably dig up 20 threads where a such a request has been ignored or met with scorn from posters with "alternative theories" about how the game works. If people choose not to give information that is asked for repeatedly they really have no cause for complaint.

Totally agree. And that is not what I was referring to.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Toast

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

Read his post. He said absolutely nothing about an outfielder throwing to first.

Bloodsausage

[mainstreet]

The obvious explanation is being missed here: Your 1B is a crappy defender who needs his head examined. (Or, rather, the opponent's is, since it was his defender.)

The point is, players make dumb plays on occasion. Forgetting how many outs there are, throwing to the wrong play, etc. Players are not managers, who have time to analyze and optimize every decision. They will screw up.

You might have a case here if this was a repeated occurence and/or the 1B was reported to have perfect defense (with scouting off).

[Toast]

Sorry I got it mixed with Marcus' original post ... out at first by the 1 baseman when he should have thrown home with the infield playing in makes it even worse than an outfielder thrown to first ... however for the computer per se the result is the same ... there is an out at first. Whether this out was pre-determine isn't clear but the incorrect pbp does draw one's attention to this possibility ... the out is going to occur while the score is maintained.

Toast

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Toast

Sorry I got it mixed with Marcus' original post ... out at first by the 1 baseman when he should have thrown home with the infield playing in makes it even worse than an outfielder thrown to first ... however for the computer per se the result is the same ... there is an out at first. Whether this out was pre-determine isn't clear but the incorrect pbp does draw one's attention to this possibility ... the out is going to occur while the score is maintained.

Toast

Marcus? May I ask who that is?

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Toast

Sorry I got it mixed with Marcus' original post ... out at first by the 1 baseman when he should have thrown home with the infield playing in makes it even worse than an outfielder thrown to first ... however for the computer per se the result is the same ... there is an out at first. Whether this out was pre-determine isn't clear but the incorrect pbp does draw one's attention to this possibility ... the out is going to occur while the score is maintained.

Toast

What evidence do you have that any pre-determination has occurred? This is off-topic to the thread and baseless. You could make a better experience for all by putting aside this crazy theory and actually discussing the topic at hand.

[MKG1734]

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.

Incorrect on multiple fronts.

I attempted to find documentation of my specific problem on this form. I could not other than the referenced remark by Markus Heinsohn which is in one of the original posts. However; the gameplay did not match what Mr. Heinsohn's statement from this forum indicated it should.

The 'explanation in detail' fails to acknowledge that the situation explained is both different from my original post as well as being directly contradictory to Mr. Heinsohn's post.


I continually have seen, "its been gone over..."

What has? The bases loaded, winning run on 3rd and an infielder making a play to 1st allowing the winning run to score? If this is what you mean by, "its been gone over..." and your point of reference is Mr. Heinsohn's quote then, no, the gameplay directly contradicts that statement. If you are referencing something else by "its been gone over..." this will be another time Ive asked: what and were? Because, if so, I am missing it and perhaps there was no reason to waste Mr. Heinsohn's time with this. Instead of replying with a snarky remark, perhaps you could help by pointing out where "its been gone over...

By all means, post things that you see are screwy and people will discuss, even the vets however if you are posting things like the same thing over and over with different names and not listening to the people that do try to help, things get derailed quick

I am unsure if this is directed at me; however, if it is .... I have not been 'posting the same thing over and over with different names' ... nor have I 'not been listening to people that do try to help.'

I, both, researched what I was told to, found the topic that seemingly was being referenced, indicated that the documented response stated one thing, while the game produced a different result and then asked for further clarification with regard to there possibly being more information than I was finding and seeing. Furthermore, I posted a report in the bug forum from work (where I do not have the game and cannot post a gamelog, so chill out).

Furthermore, and for the record, I am not a part of the 'pre-determined sim' crowd as I haven't even looked into this claim. And this thread should not include a discussion about it.

[Toast]

Originally Posted by RchW

What evidence do you have that any pre-determination has occurred? This is off-topic to the thread and baseless. You could make a better experience for all by putting aside this crazy theory and actually discussing the topic at hand.

Thank you for bold highlighting of my post ... however you took it out of context ... I said 'I don't know if the play was pre-determine but' considering the inaccurate pbp the possibility might exist ... the out occurs and the score remains the same. As for the original topic ... the poster questioned how logically the program came to the conclusion it did. I'm wondering the same thing.

Toast

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Lou Gehrig

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.

This.

[MKG1734]

No. This. ----->

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.

Incorrect on multiple fronts.

I attempted to find documentation of my specific problem on this form. I could not other than the referenced remark by Markus Heinsohn which is in one of the original posts. However; the gameplay did not match what Mr. Heinsohn's statement from this forum indicated it should.

The 'explanation in detail' fails to acknowledge that the situation explained is both different from my original post as well as being directly contradictory to Mr. Heinsohn's post.

I continually have seen, "its been gone over..."

What has? The bases loaded, winning run on 3rd and an infielder making a play to 1st allowing the winning run to score? If this is what you mean by, "its been gone over..." and your point of reference is Mr. Heinsohn's quote then, no, the gameplay directly contradicts that statement. If you are referencing something else by "its been gone over..." this will be another time Ive asked: what and were? Because, if so, I am missing it and perhaps there was no reason to waste Mr. Heinsohn's time with this. Instead of replying with a snarky remark, perhaps you could help by pointing out where "its been gone over...

By all means, post things that you see are screwy and people will discuss, even the vets however if you are posting things like the same thing over and over with different names and not listening to the people that do try to help, things get derailed quick

I am unsure if this is directed at me; however, if it is .... I have not been 'posting the same thing over and over with different names' ... nor have I 'not been listening to people that do try to help.'

I, both, researched what I was told to, found the topic that seemingly was being referenced, indicated that the documented response stated one thing, while the game produced a different result and then asked for further clarification with regard to there possibly being more information than I was finding and seeing. Furthermore, I posted a report in the bug forum from work (where I do not have the game and cannot post a gamelog, so chill out).

Furthermore, and for the record, I am not a part of the 'pre-determined sim' crowd as I haven't even looked into this claim. And this thread should not include a discussion about it.

[mainstreet]

I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by documentation.

Users are requesting you post game logs and/or pbp as evidence when you report the bug. So, yes, when you get access to the game again, you should update your post in the bug report thread, and understand it will likely be ignored until you do so.

(As I said, I think this is more likely to be a bad play than an AI error regardless.)

[ezpkns34]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'd say a ground ball right to 2nd or SS should probably not result in a throw home unless Usain Bolt was at bat

[MKG1734]

Originally Posted by mainstreet

I think you're misunderstanding what is meant by documentation.

Users are requesting you post game logs and/or pbp as evidence when you report the bug. So, yes, when you get access to the game again, you should update your post in the bug report thread, and understand it will likely be ignored until you do so.

(As I said, I think this is more likely to be a bad play than an AI error regardless.)

I do understand...I just can't post the pbp right now or game log. And you may be right about a bad play; however, Mr. Heinsohn's comment indicates that it should not ever occur. Remember...this is a computer game. These 'plays' are completed using code. Mr. Heinsohn indicated that the code essentially forces a player to throw to the plate in this situation. Therefore, it is interesting that it occurred.

[MKG1734]

Originally Posted by ezpkns34

I'd say a ground ball right to 2nd or SS should probably not result in a throw home unless Usain Bolt was at bat

Note that the AI had 'infield in,' therefore, a double play is not set up.