You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise)
-
Earlier today I played a game and within the first 3+ innings, my opponent had SIX "ok" contact base hits (including 4 ground balls). During that span, I had a good/squared up swing with FotF Torres against a LHP that was a lineout. Jump ahead to the 8th and I'm losing 9-8 (it was All-Star so it was a low-scoring game). My first hitter is FotF Soto who hits a perfect line drive and lines out to the CF. Going into the 9th I'm still down one and get a lead-off single. On a 3-2 count, I send the runner and have a good/squared up swing with FotF Devers against a RHP and line out to the RF who then doubles off my runner from first. So over the course of the game, I have 3 high-power guys have good/squared up or perfect swings for outs. Meanwhile, my opponent does not have a single good/squared up or perfect swing out the entire game and I end up losing by one.
Now, I'm NOT arguing that there shouldn't be hard hit outs or that there shouldn't be weak contact hits. Those are part of baseball and should be somewhat represented in the game (although you can argue to what extent). And then by that logic, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be RNG to a certain extent. However, it seems to me that what you can't argue is that there is RNG at play in these games, and sometimes it can be the deciding factor. And for people who play this game competitively, it can be incredibly frustrating to do everything perfectly on your end and not get rewarded while your opponent does everything wrong and DOES get rewarded. And yes it goes both ways, but whether it helps you or hurts you doesn't change whether or not it is too prevalent in the game.
So the question becomes "how much RNG is acceptable in a video game based on a sport that does have an essence of randomness to it"? Should it be so prevalent that we all (and I'm sure we all can) can look back at games that we've won AND lost and say "I won/lost that game,not because of my input or skill, but because something out of my control went against me/went my way"? Should the "that's baseball" excuse really transfer over to a video game? Or should a video game focus more on cause & effect (or input/reward) than trying to replicate randomness which, by the very nature of randomness, is impossible to replicate.
I'm going to put up another post now as well that takes this question and applies it to another popular style of game that might help us come to an answer. I'd love to get an actual discussion going that SDS can actually look at instead of people just trolling each other.
-
Well done. I think you squared this one up!
“Now, I'm NOT arguing that there shouldn't be hard hit outs or that there shouldn't be weak contact hits. Those are part of baseball and should be somewhat represented in the game (although you can argue to what extent). And then by that logic, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be RNG to a certain extent.”
I’d rather them make pitching almost impossible to get perfect input rather than telling me it was good or perfect 90% of the time, but serving the ball up on a tee. What’s the point of telling me the quality of input?? Lol
-
I totally get it! I've always been in the camp that says "make the input harder and then reward me for it." Yes, if every squared up ball was a HR (or even a double) then there would be too many HRs. Ok...I agree. But rather than that being an argument for RNG, I'd say that's an argument to make the input more difficult. Make it HARDER to square a ball up (or get a perfect pitching input) and then reward me for it when I do it.
Using your pitching input example, make it incredibly hard for a pitcher with bad control to get a perfect release, but when I get it, then pinpoint that badboy. And scale how far I miss the "perfect" input with how bad I miss my spot. If I barely miss perfect, then I barely miss my spot rather than having a barely missed input mean the ball can literally go anywhere the RNG happens to decide on that particular pitch
-
Who ever said there wasn't a factor of RNG in the game? Nothing is unaffected by RNG on some level.
-
This is how it goes, plain and simple.
1 - Game companies want money.
2- They get money from players.
3- They want to retain those players for money making purposes.
4- They design their game to keep players interested.
5- Players spend money because their liking the success they are having in the game.Unfortunately that’s how it goes these days. Isn’t it interesting that the consensus is that the majority of the BS you experience during games is at the levels where the majority of players play? Think about that for a second.
-
@Boudrow96 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
Well done. I think you squared this one up!
“Now, I'm NOT arguing that there shouldn't be hard hit outs or that there shouldn't be weak contact hits. Those are part of baseball and should be somewhat represented in the game (although you can argue to what extent). And then by that logic, I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be RNG to a certain extent.”
I’d rather them make pitching almost impossible to get perfect input rather than telling me it was good or perfect 90% of the time, but serving the ball up on a tee. What’s the point of telling me the quality of input?? Lol
This is exactly how I feel. Rather than having a bunch of "Good/Okay" popouts where I KNOW that I was a hair early or late, why not just have the feedback window say "Slightly early" or "Slightly late" or make the PCI's smaller so I dont FEEL like I am squaring pitches up for outs. That, to me, remedies all of these average players who think they are Pitching Rebel but are getting screwed over by RNG
-
Agreed. It’d be like putting my car on cruise control but the car goes whatever speed it wants.
I don’t care how precisely I did something if the result is random.
-
@Ch-76-1908 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
Who ever said there wasn't a factor of RNG in the game? Nothing is unaffected by RNG on some level.
You completely missed the point.
-
It's not just squaring up or not squaring up. It's worse than that.
The AI dictates the animation on the final pitch location. The AI regularly places the pitch in a spot that your eye knows it couldn't actually end up. Because it's not based on physics, it's based on animation. That is why, you can't "really" get better at a game. You're continually practicing real-life physics (you manipulating the controller) against AI generated animation that don't match.
And they are so inconsistent you just can't practice and get better. The only way to get better through practice is with a consistent and replicable feedback experience. That's not part of this game.
It generates the audio, and controller feedback that makes you "believe" you hit the ball square. It's a complete sham.
-
@dcordash1 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
It's not just squaring up or not squaring up. It's worse than that.
The AI dictates the animation on the final pitch location. The AI regularly places the pitch in a spot that your eye knows it couldn't actually end up. Because it's not based on physics, it's based on animation. That is why, you can't "really" get better at a game. You're continually practicing real-life physics (you manipulating the controller) against AI generated animation that don't match.
And they are so inconsistent you just can't practice and get better. The only way to get better through practice is with a consistent and replicable feedback experience. That's not part of this game.
It generates the audio, and controller feedback that makes you "believe" you hit the ball square. It's a complete sham.
Great point! Batted balls, routes in the outfield and pitch location are normally all dictated by laws of physics in real life, (The reason statcast has become so popular with launch angles and exit velo) whereas here it’s just computer generated and removes any sort of experiential learning.
-
Wait, is anyone actually arguing that RNG isn't sometimes the deciding factor? Because I've never seen anyone argue to that effect.
Like, great argument, you made some great points and it's organized wonderfully, but aren't you also kind of arguing against something that isn't there in a way?
I don't want to call your argument a straw man argument, because I don't think that word quite fits, but you are arguing against a claim no one has made. Unless someone has said that, but I've never seen someone say "RNG is never the deciding factor"
Maybe rework your title? Because it implies someone actually is arguing that RNG doesn't affect games.
-
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
I totally get it! I've always been in the camp that says "make the input harder and then reward me for it." Yes, if every squared up ball was a HR (or even a double) then there would be too many HRs. Ok...I agree. But rather than that being an argument for RNG, I'd say that's an argument to make the input more difficult. Make it HARDER to square a ball up (or get a perfect pitching input) and then reward me for it when I do it.
Using your pitching input example, make it incredibly hard for a pitcher with bad control to get a perfect release, but when I get it, then pinpoint that badboy. And scale how far I miss the "perfect" input with how bad I miss my spot. If I barely miss perfect, then I barely miss my spot rather than having a barely missed input mean the ball can literally go anywhere the RNG happens to decide on that particular pitch
Problem is they did that. Thats why we have Good/ok on balls near center or center pci. I really don't think theres any middle groun here. You either let usr input be the main factor or rng. Seems SDS choose RNG.
-
@XxLordKingAcexX said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@Ch-76-1908 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
Who ever said there wasn't a factor of RNG in the game? Nothing is unaffected by RNG on some level.
You completely missed the point.
Oky doky. I'll just continue to be a total simp who actually enjoys playing the game. It seems to beat the alternative of checking the hit chance every time something doesn't go my way. Plus, fortunately I don't have the time and am not so affected by a VIDEO GAME that I need to pour my heart out every time I lose a game!
FYI, the last sentence isn't directed at you. It's a broad generalization. One that is sadly very accurate for way too many people on here. It's a video game. Have fun playing it. If you're inclined to write an anti-MLBTS manifesto on a weekly basis then I'd start looking for another game. Or a completely different hobby altogether.
-
@j9milz said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
I totally get it! I've always been in the camp that says "make the input harder and then reward me for it." Yes, if every squared up ball was a HR (or even a double) then there would be too many HRs. Ok...I agree. But rather than that being an argument for RNG, I'd say that's an argument to make the input more difficult. Make it HARDER to square a ball up (or get a perfect pitching input) and then reward me for it when I do it.
Using your pitching input example, make it incredibly hard for a pitcher with bad control to get a perfect release, but when I get it, then pinpoint that badboy. And scale how far I miss the "perfect" input with how bad I miss my spot. If I barely miss perfect, then I barely miss my spot rather than having a barely missed input mean the ball can literally go anywhere the RNG happens to decide on that particular pitch
Problem is they did that. Thats why we have Good/ok on balls near center or center pci. I really don't think theres any middle groun here. You either let usr input be the main factor or rng. Seems SDS choose RNG.
Making it harder would explain good/ok near the center. But then how do you explain good/good swings when the ball is on the outside of the inner PCI? I've hit HRs with swings like that and I'd argue that should never happen
-
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@j9milz said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
I totally get it! I've always been in the camp that says "make the input harder and then reward me for it." Yes, if every squared up ball was a HR (or even a double) then there would be too many HRs. Ok...I agree. But rather than that being an argument for RNG, I'd say that's an argument to make the input more difficult. Make it HARDER to square a ball up (or get a perfect pitching input) and then reward me for it when I do it.
Using your pitching input example, make it incredibly hard for a pitcher with bad control to get a perfect release, but when I get it, then pinpoint that badboy. And scale how far I miss the "perfect" input with how bad I miss my spot. If I barely miss perfect, then I barely miss my spot rather than having a barely missed input mean the ball can literally go anywhere the RNG happens to decide on that particular pitch
Problem is they did that. Thats why we have Good/ok on balls near center or center pci. I really don't think theres any middle groun here. You either let usr input be the main factor or rng. Seems SDS choose RNG.
Making it harder would explain good/ok near the center. But then how do you explain good/good swings when the ball is on the outside of the inner PCI? I've hit HRs with swings like that and I'd argue that should never happen
Rng, both examples lets you know they game is not factoring user input/pci placment as much as it should. Take directional hitting for example. When using directional the game doesn't show you where the pci ended up. So a good/good could literally be anything. Seems as if the same thing is being applied to zone at times. I've said before people have theories about pitching and the reason for meatballs is to give directional hitters more hittable balls. They are trying to balance the game to much to please everyone.Same thing applies if your not great with pci placement, rng is used a lot more than it should to make sure you can still get hits even with terrible or not so good placement.
-
@j9milz said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@j9milz said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
I totally get it! I've always been in the camp that says "make the input harder and then reward me for it." Yes, if every squared up ball was a HR (or even a double) then there would be too many HRs. Ok...I agree. But rather than that being an argument for RNG, I'd say that's an argument to make the input more difficult. Make it HARDER to square a ball up (or get a perfect pitching input) and then reward me for it when I do it.
Using your pitching input example, make it incredibly hard for a pitcher with bad control to get a perfect release, but when I get it, then pinpoint that badboy. And scale how far I miss the "perfect" input with how bad I miss my spot. If I barely miss perfect, then I barely miss my spot rather than having a barely missed input mean the ball can literally go anywhere the RNG happens to decide on that particular pitch
Problem is they did that. Thats why we have Good/ok on balls near center or center pci. I really don't think theres any middle groun here. You either let usr input be the main factor or rng. Seems SDS choose RNG.
Making it harder would explain good/ok near the center. But then how do you explain good/good swings when the ball is on the outside of the inner PCI? I've hit HRs with swings like that and I'd argue that should never happen
Rng, both examples lets you know they game is not factoring user input/pci placment as much as it should. Take directional hitting for example. When using directional the game doesn't show you where the pci ended up. So a good/good could literally be anything. Seems as if the same thing is being applied to zone at times. I've said before people have theories about pitching and the reason for meatballs is to give directional hitters more hittable balls. They are trying to balance the game to much to please everyone.Same thing applies if your not great with pci placement, rng is used a lot more than it should to make sure you can still get hits even with terrible or not so good placement.
You know, I’ve wondered this. The thing is, even when the hitter uses directional, the analysis still shows hit chance numbers and P.
-
@halfbutt said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@j9milz said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@j9milz said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@xIAmJumpMan23x said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
I totally get it! I've always been in the camp that says "make the input harder and then reward me for it." Yes, if every squared up ball was a HR (or even a double) then there would be too many HRs. Ok...I agree. But rather than that being an argument for RNG, I'd say that's an argument to make the input more difficult. Make it HARDER to square a ball up (or get a perfect pitching input) and then reward me for it when I do it.
Using your pitching input example, make it incredibly hard for a pitcher with bad control to get a perfect release, but when I get it, then pinpoint that badboy. And scale how far I miss the "perfect" input with how bad I miss my spot. If I barely miss perfect, then I barely miss my spot rather than having a barely missed input mean the ball can literally go anywhere the RNG happens to decide on that particular pitch
Problem is they did that. Thats why we have Good/ok on balls near center or center pci. I really don't think theres any middle groun here. You either let usr input be the main factor or rng. Seems SDS choose RNG.
Making it harder would explain good/ok near the center. But then how do you explain good/good swings when the ball is on the outside of the inner PCI? I've hit HRs with swings like that and I'd argue that should never happen
Rng, both examples lets you know they game is not factoring user input/pci placment as much as it should. Take directional hitting for example. When using directional the game doesn't show you where the pci ended up. So a good/good could literally be anything. Seems as if the same thing is being applied to zone at times. I've said before people have theories about pitching and the reason for meatballs is to give directional hitters more hittable balls. They are trying to balance the game to much to please everyone.Same thing applies if your not great with pci placement, rng is used a lot more than it should to make sure you can still get hits even with terrible or not so good placement.
You know, I’ve wondered this. The thing is, even when the hitter uses directional, the analysis still shows hit chance numbers and P.
From what Ive gathered its beacuse pci is till being used. Just not by the user. Its basically the epitome of RNG. Only thing i wonder is what decides or goes into where the pci ends up. Lol
-
@Ch-76-1908 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@XxLordKingAcexX said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@Ch-76-1908 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
Who ever said there wasn't a factor of RNG in the game? Nothing is unaffected by RNG on some level.
You completely missed the point.
Oky doky. I'll just continue to be a total simp who actually enjoys playing the game. It seems to beat the alternative of checking the hit chance every time something doesn't go my way. Plus, fortunately I don't have the time and am not so affected by a VIDEO GAME that I need to pour my heart out every time I lose a game!
FYI, the last sentence isn't directed at you. It's a broad generalization. One that is sadly very accurate for way too many people on here. It's a video game. Have fun playing it. If you're inclined to write an anti-MLBTS manifesto on a weekly basis then I'd start looking for another game. Or a completely different hobby altogether.
I had nothing to say about your point of view on the game. All I was saying, is that you missed the point of his post. You either completely did not comprehend it, or you chose not to read it and respond anyways.
The point of the post was not to bad mouth the game and RNG and how he lost or anything like that.
The whole point of the post was to stir discussion and question how much RNG SHOULD be incorporated into competitive game modes. He was raising the question that baseball can be random, but how much RNG should there be in a competitive game based on user input.
-
@XxLordKingAcexX said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@Ch-76-1908 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@XxLordKingAcexX said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
@Ch-76-1908 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
Who ever said there wasn't a factor of RNG in the game? Nothing is unaffected by RNG on some level.
You completely missed the point.
Oky doky. I'll just continue to be a total simp who actually enjoys playing the game. It seems to beat the alternative of checking the hit chance every time something doesn't go my way. Plus, fortunately I don't have the time and am not so affected by a VIDEO GAME that I need to pour my heart out every time I lose a game!
FYI, the last sentence isn't directed at you. It's a broad generalization. One that is sadly very accurate for way too many people on here. It's a video game. Have fun playing it. If you're inclined to write an anti-MLBTS manifesto on a weekly basis then I'd start looking for another game. Or a completely different hobby altogether.
I had nothing to say about your point of view on the game. All I was saying, is that you missed the point of his post. You either completely did not comprehend it, or you chose not to read it and respond anyways.
The point of the post was not to bad mouth the game and RNG and how he lost or anything like that.
The whole point of the post was to stir discussion and question how much RNG SHOULD be incorporated into competitive game modes. He was raising the question that baseball can be random, but how much RNG should there be in a competitive game based on user input.
Religious lady from Orange is the New Black hallelujah gif
-
@dcordash1 said in You can't argue that RNG doesn't affect games (Pt 1 - The Premise):
It's not just squaring up or not squaring up. It's worse than that.
The AI dictates the animation on the final pitch location. The AI regularly places the pitch in a spot that your eye knows it couldn't actually end up. Because it's not based on physics, it's based on animation. That is why, you can't "really" get better at a game. You're continually practicing real-life physics (you manipulating the controller) against AI generated animation that don't match.
And they are so inconsistent you just can't practice and get better. The only way to get better through practice is with a consistent and replicable feedback experience. That's not part of this game.
It generates the audio, and controller feedback that makes you "believe" you hit the ball square. It's a complete sham.
Amen, brother.
