The Equalizer aka rubberbanding
-
This post is deleted!
-
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
On a perfectly timed, perfectly squared up ball, how many stats does the programming have to take into consideration to produce an outcome? A batter’s power, a batter’s clutch factor? A pitcher’s h/9, their clutch factor, that particular pitch’s confidence level, the pitcher's overall confidence and energy. Are there other factors in play at the point of contact? How do all these variables work together? Does one or two override the others? I don’t think the game necessarily sets a narrative as to who is going to win or lose, but there is so much that occurs at the point of contact, I’m surprised the game doesn’t explode every time a ball is hit.
That's probably at least partially what happens.
But it sounds weird to me that a good/squared contact would be so heavily affected by the pitcher's numbers and that a hit may not be a hit due pitcher confidence or what not. If that is indeed the case I can only say that I wish it wasn't.
It does however seem very convenient to me that when I play against someone better than me my 15/Ns no longer line out. It's almost as if the game knows or recognizes that I wont get as many 15s vs this guy so better help him out.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
-
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me. -
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
Well one thing could be how many 14 and 13 labeled hits there were compared. I dont really see the big difference, if any, in hits labeled 15, 14 and 13. In that area they all seem to have roughly the same exit velos. But yes, fielding, baserunning, just overall baseball decisions will mostly out weigh the hitting in almost any game.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
-
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ChuckCLC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I have a question for you. If everything else is controlled for, does the player who hits 15 x 15/N deserve to win over the player who hits 3 x 15/N?
That is just one aspect of the game. So not necessarily. Just like the QB that throws for 350 yards shouldnt win over the guy who threw for 175. Or the NBA team that had 2 40 point scorers shouldnt beat the team that had zero. Many more factors at play. There is no way all other things are even.
What else could come in and close that gap other than intentionally misfielding ball[s]?
It means that however good the pitches were, the batter did better by squaring the balls perfectly and with ideal timing.
It also means that however poorly that player was pitching the other person was much less successful at hitting those pitches.
What is that factor that closes the distance between 15 good/squareds and 3 good/squareds?
Even if the other person hit them sporadically throughout 9 innings and the other all in 1 inning you would still expect the former to win.
Well one thing could be how many 14 and 13 labeled hits there were compared. I dont really see the big difference, if any, in hits labeled 15, 14 and 13. In that area they all seem to have roughly the same exit velos. But yes, fielding, baserunning, just overall baseball decisions will mostly out weigh the hitting in almost any game.
A 14/N is good/good and is definitely good input.
However, I've never encountered a situation where a person would have 10+ 14s. I suppose with a high enough count of 14s it could be close to being fair and leave the window open for luck to play a factor. That being said, in my experience the amount of 15/Ns is generally a good indicator of a players input in a game and with a low count of 15s a player isnt likely to have a ton of 14s either.
With respect to baserunning and fielding, I disagree.
In comparison to hitting routerunning and baserunning are very easy and most average players are good enough at it that it just doesnt create any separation between players. I've also never seen someone who excels at hitting suck at routerunning or baserunning.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
If it's the end all be all, does a person who gets 8 15's deserve to win over someone who gets 7 15's?
Because that's what end all be all means, that nothing else matters. What if that person who got 7 15's did it all in two innings to put together a rally and the person with 8 15's did so over the course of 8 different innings so there weren't people on base/rallies?
I'm not saying this applies to your situation, but it's defintely not the ONLY thing that matters. -
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
If it's the end all be all, does a person who gets 8 15's deserve to win over someone who gets 7 15's?
Because that's one end all be all means, that nothing else matters. What if that person who got 7 15's did it all in two innings to put together a rally and the person with 8 15's did so over the course of 8 different innings?
I'm not saying this applies to your situation, but it's defintely not the ONLY thing that matters.Fair enough, when the input is objectively that close, other factors may come into play. Which is why my example was what it was.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@eatyum said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
I get being frustrated by squaring up the ball a ton and not getting the results. I've been there, I've raged about it.
But we are beginning to act like 15's are the end all be all. Do they matter? Yes! But they aren't the "well I hit x amount and he hit z amount so he's worse than me.A 15/N = good/squared - are we acting like this isn't the best possible input you can have?
Do you see me claiming that? Where did I say a 15 isn't the best possible swing? My point that we act like it's the end all be all still remains.
How is a 15/N not the end all be all?
The only thing that can be argued to be as important as hitting in the game is pitching, but a 15/N already accounts for pitching. It shows that I've squared up your pitches and that I've timed it perfectly.
Seeing as how easy fielding and baserunning is a good/squared is the end all be all when it comes to user input.
If it's the end all be all, does a person who gets 8 15's deserve to win over someone who gets 7 15's?
Because that's one end all be all means, that nothing else matters. What if that person who got 7 15's did it all in two innings to put together a rally and the person with 8 15's did so over the course of 8 different innings?
I'm not saying this applies to your situation, but it's defintely not the ONLY thing that matters.Fair enough, when the input is objectively that close, other factors may come into play. Which is why my example was what it was.
Thank you, I wasn't arguing that your case is wrong, when there is that disparity, you should feel cheated, I def would. And while I don't think it's rubberbanding, it defintely is an issue that I hope gets dealt with in 20.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
Mainly because every player would feel it and almost every game would have comebacks and late rallies to make it close. Rubberbanding is almost always obvious, and usually built for vs CPU play. Even Mario Kart doesn't rubberband with PVP
-
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
Mainly because every player would feel it and almost every game would have comebacks and late rallies to make it close. Rubberbanding is almost always obvious, and usually built for vs CPU play. Even Mario Kart doesn't rubberband with PVP
Well, in Mario Kart people who have fallen behind get blue shells and bullets and stars. While the people in the front get green shells and bananas. Mario Kart attempts to give the people in the back an opportunity to close the gap. Sometimes two late jammed hits then a three run jack off a hanging change up sure does feel like a blue shell.
-
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
Mainly because every player would feel it and almost every game would have comebacks and late rallies to make it close. Rubberbanding is almost always obvious, and usually built for vs CPU play. Even Mario Kart doesn't rubberband with PVP
Well, in Mario Kart people who have fallen behind get blue shells and bullets and stars. While the people in the front get green shells and bananas. Mario Kart attempts to give the people in the back an opportunity to close the gap. Sometimes two late jammed hits then a three run jack off a hanging change up sure does feel like a blue shell.
Make that a hanging changeup on a good/good input aimed at the batter's toes.
-
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
Mainly because every player would feel it and almost every game would have comebacks and late rallies to make it close. Rubberbanding is almost always obvious, and usually built for vs CPU play. Even Mario Kart doesn't rubberband with PVP
Well, in Mario Kart people who have fallen behind get blue shells and bullets and stars. While the people in the front get green shells and bananas. Mario Kart attempts to give the people in the back an opportunity to close the gap. Sometimes two late jammed hits then a three run jack off a hanging change up sure does feel like a blue shell.
In Mario kart, drops aren't determined by standings, but distance. And in Mario Kart, the ai will factually get a speed boost and better handling, but players never get that
-
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
Mainly because every player would feel it and almost every game would have comebacks and late rallies to make it close. Rubberbanding is almost always obvious, and usually built for vs CPU play. Even Mario Kart doesn't rubberband with PVP
Well, in Mario Kart people who have fallen behind get blue shells and bullets and stars. While the people in the front get green shells and bananas. Mario Kart attempts to give the people in the back an opportunity to close the gap. Sometimes two late jammed hits then a three run jack off a hanging change up sure does feel like a blue shell.
In Mario kart, drops aren't determined by standings, but distance. And in Mario Kart, the ai will factually get a speed boost and better handling, but players never get that
Is it possible that timing windows and contact areas could fluctuate?
-
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@vagimon said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@ImDFC said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
Rubberband AI doesn't really work in a PVP environment.
Why wouldn't it?
Mainly because every player would feel it and almost every game would have comebacks and late rallies to make it close. Rubberbanding is almost always obvious, and usually built for vs CPU play. Even Mario Kart doesn't rubberband with PVP
Well, in Mario Kart people who have fallen behind get blue shells and bullets and stars. While the people in the front get green shells and bananas. Mario Kart attempts to give the people in the back an opportunity to close the gap. Sometimes two late jammed hits then a three run jack off a hanging change up sure does feel like a blue shell.
In Mario kart, drops aren't determined by standings, but distance. And in Mario Kart, the ai will factually get a speed boost and better handling, but players never get that
Is it possible that timing windows and contact areas could fluctuate?
Very possible but no way to verify.
