Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@vagimon said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@vagimon said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

This is funny to see people complain about losing a video game. Sometimes those are the breaks. If you have ever played a competitive sport irl you would know that it’s not always being better often if about being timely.l and sometimes a bit of luck. There are so many factors that go into any given win. The best team or athlete in sports doesn’t always win. I think of Anderson Silva vs Sonnen or Derek Jeters career. But whatever, some people want to think that some outside force or ent is holding them down...grievance mindset, instead of growth mindset

I’m not sure what your ranked seasons record is, but of your losses, do you find that many of them occur after blowing a lead in the 7th, 8th, or 9th? I lose in all sorts of ways, but some of which occur after losing my lead in the latter innings. If you find that you don’t struggle with blowing leads late, what are some of the strategies you use to keep that from happening?

I don’t think I blow leads late. I pull the pitcher when they are tired and pay attention to pitch count. I also pay attention to pitch confidence in terms of selection in clutch situations.

On the offensive side to me it’s about working the count to increase pitch total and reduce confidence.

You have been able to figure out how to combat the “comeback logic” that a lot of people complain about. Using pitches with the most confidence, is that how you keep [censored] from going right down the middle in crucial situations?

Actually yes. Check the confidence on those meatball pitches kid. Also don’t be afraid to walk someone. Sorry that the answer is that simple. And this is going to sound real basic but mound visits are helpful. So is taking a guy out if you don’t have confidence you can get the batter out with the pitch or pitches he has confidence with.

It is rare that I lose a comeback game and can’t directly attribute it to a mistake I made. Kept a dude in too long, didn’t pay attention to confidence etc

Lmao, you write as if you've figured something out but a rudimentary search shows that you're a lifetime .267 batter... Clearly you're not that great at the game.

SDS

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

SDS

I win a good share of 4-3 games so stopping the comeback is super important for me. Whereas you might be winning 8-2 all the time. Playing in pressure might be rare for you. Also keep in mind my .267 was done playing with some crappy players as I was going for Affinity quite a bit

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

Batting average is a good indicator of someone’s ability to hit in this game.

But it’s whatever, keep complaining about comeback logic and don’t listen to a dude who is in close games and doesn’t have that problem. Have fun.

Keep this in mind. I am not a ultra superior player and my hitting is so-so. Therefore i am constantly in close games. I might no a thing or two about how to survive close games. Maybe more so then dudes who blow people out on the regular.

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

Batting average is a good indicator of someone’s ability to hit in this game.

But it’s whatever, keep complaining about comeback logic and don’t listen to a dude who is in close games and doesn’t have that problem. Have fun.

Keep this in mind. I am not a ultra superior player and my hitting is so-so. Therefore i am constantly in close games. I might no a thing or two about how to survive close games. Maybe more so then dudes who blow people out on the regular.

I dont talk about comeback logic. I talk about the grotesque amount of RNG this year as opposed to MLB 15 and 16. I'm not alone with this opinion.

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

Batting average is a good indicator of someone’s ability to hit in this game.

But it’s whatever, keep complaining about comeback logic and don’t listen to a dude who is in close games and doesn’t have that problem. Have fun.

Keep this in mind. I am not a ultra superior player and my hitting is so-so. Therefore i am constantly in close games. I might no a thing or two about how to survive close games. Maybe more so then dudes who blow people out on the regular.

I dont talk about comeback logic. I talk about the grotesque amount of RNG this year as opposed to MLB 15 and 16. I'm not alone with this opinion.

Oh, ok sure. Believe what you want I guess. But if I am batting .267 and I am assuming you are batting significantly higher, why aren’t our averages the same if it’s just random? Why does Rebel win so much more than everyone else. If it’s random this should not happen.

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

Batting average is a good indicator of someone’s ability to hit in this game.

But it’s whatever, keep complaining about comeback logic and don’t listen to a dude who is in close games and doesn’t have that problem. Have fun.

Keep this in mind. I am not a ultra superior player and my hitting is so-so. Therefore i am constantly in close games. I might no a thing or two about how to survive close games. Maybe more so then dudes who blow people out on the regular.

I dont talk about comeback logic. I talk about the grotesque amount of RNG this year as opposed to MLB 15 and 16. I'm not alone with this opinion.

Oh, ok sure. Believe what you want I guess. But if I am batting .267 and I am assuming you are batting significantly higher, why aren’t our averages the same if it’s just random? Why does Rebel win so much more than everyone else. If it’s random this should not happen.

Lol this is such a childish black and white argument. We've gone over this a million times. Rebel doesn't win nearly as often as he should. That's an objective fact and if you but watched him play over an extended period of time you'd see this.

Suffice to say that the people whose opinion I value agree with me, not you. What you believe is ultimately unimportant to me.

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

This is funny to see people complain about losing a video game. Sometimes those are the breaks. If you have ever played a competitive sport irl you would know that it’s not always being better often if about being timely.l and sometimes a bit of luck. There are so many factors that go into any given win. The best team or athlete in sports doesn’t always win. I think of Anderson Silva vs Sonnen or Derek Jeters career. But whatever, some people want to think that some outside force or ent is holding them down...grievance mindset, instead of growth mindset

Bullshit.

I've competed in several sports at a relatively high tier, freeskiing, badminton, BJJ - in none of those sports does luck play a factor.

You severely exaggerate the influence of luck in baseball as well.

Tigers can beat the Yankees but relatively speaking the skill gap between the two is far from what the skill gap is between your average DS grinder and Rebel. Furthermore, the days in which the Tigers beat the Yankees they either objectively outperform them or play on par with them to leave an opening for any luck to factor in.

Never in baseball do you have a situation where one team is absolutely crushing the ball and loses to a team hopelessly flailing at pitches. In MLB the show that actually occurs.

It's also ridiculous and inane to call a desire for meritocracy a "grievance mindset".

Wow you are really salty about this. I am sorry that your high level badminton 🏸 experience does not align with most sports experience. It is very ironic because by any objective measure the Astros are better than the Nats. Matter of fact in baseball it is rare that the consensus best team wins.

I am not surprised by your concept of meritocracy as a counter to my grievance mindset. If it were a meritocracy then things like spending tons of money on monitors, internet connections and better cards play a far bigger issue. Are you earning your wins if you are blasting bombs with say Ruth compared to a guy who can’t afford him.

Lmao, "most sports experience". Bullshit.

Most sports are about human talent and hard work. Please explain to me how Roger Federer won most his grand slams by getting lucky? How much faster did Usain Bolts luck make him? Surely Aleksander Karelin just got lucky beating his opponents? What an absolutely ridiculous take.

Show me an instance where an MLB team was crushing a ball throughout an entire game and still lost to a team that flailed at the ball for the entirety of a game. I'll wait.

Monitors, cards etc. all factor in of course but were talking about after the input has already occurred... that's when the RNG kicks in. Can you not understand such a simple concept?

I will leave track out because it’s a singular skill. However, did Federer win EVERY match. NO!!! Why because on some days other factor played into it. His skill and hard work good coaching, great trainers, great equipment will win out over time. But in any individual match other factors play in.

As far as RNG. Yes it helps factor in things that we don’t have control over. For example sometimes guys have bad swings or uppercut more than they want. That is separate from timing or aiming which is represented in game. It happens less often to better players, but it happens to all. That is why the game wouldn’t be sim if it did not include this. For example, if Ruth squares up a ball with a normal swing. Should it be a homer every time? Can it be a line drive. If it can be a hard liner can it ever be at a fielder. What should determine the various outcomes?

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

Batting average is a good indicator of someone’s ability to hit in this game.

But it’s whatever, keep complaining about comeback logic and don’t listen to a dude who is in close games and doesn’t have that problem. Have fun.

Keep this in mind. I am not a ultra superior player and my hitting is so-so. Therefore i am constantly in close games. I might no a thing or two about how to survive close games. Maybe more so then dudes who blow people out on the regular.

I dont talk about comeback logic. I talk about the grotesque amount of RNG this year as opposed to MLB 15 and 16. I'm not alone with this opinion.

Oh, ok sure. Believe what you want I guess. But if I am batting .267 and I am assuming you are batting significantly higher, why aren’t our averages the same if it’s just random? Why does Rebel win so much more than everyone else. If it’s random this should not happen.

Lol this is such a childish black and white argument. We've gone over this a million times. Rebel doesn't win nearly as often as he should. That's an objective fact and if you but watched him play over an extended period of time you'd see this.

Suffice to say that the people whose opinion I value agree with me, not you. What you believe is ultimately unimportant to me.

Who determines how often he should win? Also is it that people whose opinions you value agree with you or is it that you value their opinion because they agree. It’s called group think.

But whatever. Have fun. I guess it’s all RNG but you know this already so why even talk about it if you have figured it all out?

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

This is funny to see people complain about losing a video game. Sometimes those are the breaks. If you have ever played a competitive sport irl you would know that it’s not always being better often if about being timely.l and sometimes a bit of luck. There are so many factors that go into any given win. The best team or athlete in sports doesn’t always win. I think of Anderson Silva vs Sonnen or Derek Jeters career. But whatever, some people want to think that some outside force or ent is holding them down...grievance mindset, instead of growth mindset

Bullshit.

I've competed in several sports at a relatively high tier, freeskiing, badminton, BJJ - in none of those sports does luck play a factor.

You severely exaggerate the influence of luck in baseball as well.

Tigers can beat the Yankees but relatively speaking the skill gap between the two is far from what the skill gap is between your average DS grinder and Rebel. Furthermore, the days in which the Tigers beat the Yankees they either objectively outperform them or play on par with them to leave an opening for any luck to factor in.

Never in baseball do you have a situation where one team is absolutely crushing the ball and loses to a team hopelessly flailing at pitches. In MLB the show that actually occurs.

It's also ridiculous and inane to call a desire for meritocracy a "grievance mindset".

Wow you are really salty about this. I am sorry that your high level badminton 🏸 experience does not align with most sports experience. It is very ironic because by any objective measure the Astros are better than the Nats. Matter of fact in baseball it is rare that the consensus best team wins.

I am not surprised by your concept of meritocracy as a counter to my grievance mindset. If it were a meritocracy then things like spending tons of money on monitors, internet connections and better cards play a far bigger issue. Are you earning your wins if you are blasting bombs with say Ruth compared to a guy who can’t afford him.

Lmao, "most sports experience". Bullshit.

Most sports are about human talent and hard work. Please explain to me how Roger Federer won most his grand slams by getting lucky? How much faster did Usain Bolts luck make him? Surely Aleksander Karelin just got lucky beating his opponents? What an absolutely ridiculous take.

Show me an instance where an MLB team was crushing a ball throughout an entire game and still lost to a team that flailed at the ball for the entirety of a game. I'll wait.

Monitors, cards etc. all factor in of course but were talking about after the input has already occurred... that's when the RNG kicks in. Can you not understand such a simple concept?

I will leave track out because it’s a singular skill. However, did Federer win EVERY match. NO!!! Why because on some days other factor played into it. His skill and hard work good coaching, great trainers, great equipment will win out over time. But in any individual match other factors play in.

As far as RNG. Yes it helps factor in things that we don’t have control over. For example sometimes guys have bad swings or uppercut more than they want. That is separate from timing or aiming which is represented in game. It happens less often to better players, but it happens to all. That is why the game wouldn’t be sim if it did not include this. For example, if Ruth squares up a ball with a normal swing. Should it be a homer every time? Can it be a line drive. If it can be a hard liner can it ever be at a fielder. What should determine the various outcomes?

Yes, Roger lost when he got outplayed, not because he got unlucky...

Linedrives drop in as hits anywhere between .675 - .750 in MLB. They should effectively be a hit that often. If the devs think that linedrives occur too frequently then they should increase difficulty either by adding pitch velocity or reducing PCI sizes. It's that simple.

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What does batting .267 have to do with shutting someone down the opposition when I have a lead. Maybe if you didn’t discredit people who you think you are better than you might learn something

A batting avg. is a good indicator of how good someone is at the game. Not coincidentally, Pitching Rebel has the highest.

Batting average is a good indicator of someone’s ability to hit in this game.

But it’s whatever, keep complaining about comeback logic and don’t listen to a dude who is in close games and doesn’t have that problem. Have fun.

Keep this in mind. I am not a ultra superior player and my hitting is so-so. Therefore i am constantly in close games. I might no a thing or two about how to survive close games. Maybe more so then dudes who blow people out on the regular.

I dont talk about comeback logic. I talk about the grotesque amount of RNG this year as opposed to MLB 15 and 16. I'm not alone with this opinion.

Oh, ok sure. Believe what you want I guess. But if I am batting .267 and I am assuming you are batting significantly higher, why aren’t our averages the same if it’s just random? Why does Rebel win so much more than everyone else. If it’s random this should not happen.

Lol this is such a childish black and white argument. We've gone over this a million times. Rebel doesn't win nearly as often as he should. That's an objective fact and if you but watched him play over an extended period of time you'd see this.

Suffice to say that the people whose opinion I value agree with me, not you. What you believe is ultimately unimportant to me.

Who determines how often he should win? Also is it that people whose opinions you value agree with you or is it that you value their opinion because they agree. It’s called group think.

But whatever. Have fun. I guess it’s all RNG but you know this already so why even talk about it if you have figured it all out?

What determines it?

You do know there is an objective hit analysis built into the game right? The player that is significantly outplaying his opponent should always win. I cannot make this any simpler.

SDS

ok cool man. Luck never happens in sports you got it figured out.

Also you can’t compare what happens in MLB to ranked. UNLESS you can show me a game that is filled with HOF in their prime. But what do i know. I am not smart enough to agree or have a batting average high enough to be worthy. Thank you for even gracing me and the forum with your presence....I guess

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

ok cool man. Luck never happens in sports you got it figured out.

Also you can’t compare what happens in MLB to ranked. UNLESS you can show me a game that is filled with HOF in their prime. But what do i know. I am not smart enough to agree or have a batting average high enough to be worthy. Thank you for even gracing me and the forum with your presence....I guess

Yes... luck doesn't decide sporting outcomes very frequently at all - and even if it does so, it is between sides that perform at the same level... Not where one side is crushing the other.

The show has HoF hitters and HoF pitchers, what's your point? If it was only live series teams thered be less luck involved? Smh.

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What determines it?

You do know there is an objective hit analysis built into the game right? The player that is significantly outplaying his opponent should always win. I cannot make this any simpler.

Player input and card ratings should set the range of possibilities.

An objective hit analysis would not necessarily account for clutch or RISP or even power. But it’s ok. I am not smart enough for your simple explanation. I will just accept that you know it all. See that is how group thinks work. This an me repeating what you said a without understanding how meaningless or at best flawed it is

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What determines it?

You do know there is an objective hit analysis built into the game right? The player that is significantly outplaying his opponent should always win. I cannot make this any simpler.

Player input and card ratings should set the range of possibilities.

An objective hit analysis would not necessarily account for clutch or RISP or even power. But it’s ok. I am not smart enough for your simple explanation. I will just accept that you know it all. See that is how group thinks work. This an me repeating what you said a without understanding how meaningless or at best flawed it is

No, this is a fundamental disagreement we have.

Player ratings should only determine how difficult it is to get perfect input and what is the exit velocity after a perfect input. That's it. A perfectly squared ball should be hit at the optimal launch angle for that specific player. If this makes power hitters more usable than contact hitters, so be it. But you achieve balance with giving contact hitters bigger PCIs.

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

ok cool man. Luck never happens in sports you got it figured out.

Also you can’t compare what happens in MLB to ranked. UNLESS you can show me a game that is filled with HOF in their prime. But what do i know. I am not smart enough to agree or have a batting average high enough to be worthy. Thank you for even gracing me and the forum with your presence....I guess

Yes... luck doesn't decide sporting outcomes very frequently at all - and even if it does so, it is between sides that perform at the same level... Not where one side is crushing the other.

The show has HoF hitters and HoF pitchers, what's your point? If it was only live series teams thered be less luck involved? Smh.

Bill Buckner, Chanel Sonnen, Dennis Exkersley, the Russian Hockey team, the 96 Rockets, Jessica Andrade, 2001 Diamondbacks might view luck a bit different. But it’s cool...no luck in sports. Not even sure why people say “Good luck” before a game

How can one side be crushing if they aren’t winning. Don’t tell me my small .267 mind may not be able to comprehend your genius

SDS

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What determines it?

You do know there is an objective hit analysis built into the game right? The player that is significantly outplaying his opponent should always win. I cannot make this any simpler.

Player input and card ratings should set the range of possibilities.

An objective hit analysis would not necessarily account for clutch or RISP or even power. But it’s ok. I am not smart enough for your simple explanation. I will just accept that you know it all. See that is how group thinks work. This an me repeating what you said a without understanding how meaningless or at best flawed it is

No, this is a fundamental disagreement we have.

Player ratings should only determine how difficult it is to get perfect input and what is the exit velocity after a perfect input. That's it. A perfectly squared ball should be hit at the optimal launch angle for that specific player. If this makes power hitters more usable than contact hitters, so be it. But you achieve balance with giving contact hitters bigger PCIs.

So to be clear are you looking for a baseball sim game or something else?

SDS

You're saying Sonnen got unlucky because he got caught in a triangle? No, he tried to lay and pray after he gassed in the fifth and got caught... That wasn't luck.

I dont know who Jessica Andrade is but the miracle on ice? Yeah the team that performed better that day won... You think that was luck?

SDS

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@Maverick31762 said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

@SefarR said in Hate to say it but it feels like 50-50 games are decided by the computer:

What determines it?

You do know there is an objective hit analysis built into the game right? The player that is significantly outplaying his opponent should always win. I cannot make this any simpler.

Player input and card ratings should set the range of possibilities.

An objective hit analysis would not necessarily account for clutch or RISP or even power. But it’s ok. I am not smart enough for your simple explanation. I will just accept that you know it all. See that is how group thinks work. This an me repeating what you said a without understanding how meaningless or at best flawed it is

No, this is a fundamental disagreement we have.

Player ratings should only determine how difficult it is to get perfect input and what is the exit velocity after a perfect input. That's it. A perfectly squared ball should be hit at the optimal launch angle for that specific player. If this makes power hitters more usable than contact hitters, so be it. But you achieve balance with giving contact hitters bigger PCIs.

So to be clear are you looking for a baseball sim game or something else?

I'm looking for a competitive baseball game where input rules, not luck.

Log in to reply