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.
-
@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.
-
@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?
I think the fluctuation of timing windows is playing into a lot of the unpredictable/unrewarding results that many of us complain about. I mean, varying time windows from pitch to pitch, from pitcher to pitcher, difficulty to difficulty, batter to batter...
There is a lot of math going on to determine every result. It’s no wonder things are so inconsistent.
-
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
My alarm went off. I woke up i took a [censored] and a pee. The sun came up and i then took a shower. Then I brushed my teeth. I put my clothes on.
Is it just me or does it seem like the sun is trying to make me cleaner?
That is pretty much what I heard. But carry on. I would like a complete read out from all your games.
Here is something I have noticed. If you throw a mid to low confidence pitch in the zone...bad things happen. If you throw a high confidence pitch. Even one that they should not be fooled on...better things happen
But this isn't what I'm talking about. When the game starts the confidence of all pitches is neutral. You dont start with poor confidence. Also, how am I supposed to lower the pitch confidence of the opposing pitcher other than by creating perfect contact? What if his pitches don't hang even with low confidence?
I will have to get a larger sample-size, but for now everything seems to indicate that 15s land as basehits at a larger clip vs seemingly better players (I'm not yet sure whether it would be the player's ranking, record or whatnot that would determine "better" though if this was indeed the case). Perhaps you would get the "fairest" form of gameplay in a matchup between two identically ranked guys with identical records.
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?
-
I have never looked at confidence at first pitch. But I can tell you that early on confidence changes definitely within the first inning. It changes by lack of use and result. I tend to think they don’t start even because FB confidence always seems higher.
-
You can lower confidence by hitting the pitch. Or by taking the pitch for a ball. I actually think the perceived sense of comeback logic is a function of players not properly manipulating confidence. If raise the pitch count it means you are throwing relatively more balls, this confidence goes down.
-
“Deserve” is an Interesting term. Irl Does the player who practices more and eats healthy deserve to play better. Yes. does that mean that it ends up that way. NO!!! There are other factors involved including strength of comp, style of comp, timing, latent skill, luck etc. that have a greater impact on results.
Let me get this right...
Instead of user input, latent skill (which means what, hidden skill? what is that?) and luck should have a greater influence on batting outcomes than actual inputs?
Strength of comp? What does that mean? My results on a good/squared should vary based on how good my opponent is?
Style of comp? What does this mean? How exactly would the playing style of my opponent influence the outcome of a good/squared ball?
Timing is already included in my analysis when I refer to 15/N -> The N indicates that the ball was batted at the best possible timing-window.
Interesting takes to say the least.
Another strawman argument. I never said at all about what “should” be the case.
Latent skill - look it up
Style - to simplify the concept. Let’s call it user tendencies. If I only swing at low pitches or steal like crazy or use the shift those things impact the game.Please stop derailing the thread with personal attacks. Just not cool. Plus it undercuts whatever point you are trying to make
-
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
This post is deleted!
-
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@SefarR said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
@Maverick31762 said in The Equalizer aka rubberbanding:
My alarm went off. I woke up i took a [censored] and a pee. The sun came up and i then took a shower. Then I brushed my teeth. I put my clothes on.
Is it just me or does it seem like the sun is trying to make me cleaner?
That is pretty much what I heard. But carry on. I would like a complete read out from all your games.
Here is something I have noticed. If you throw a mid to low confidence pitch in the zone...bad things happen. If you throw a high confidence pitch. Even one that they should not be fooled on...better things happen
But this isn't what I'm talking about. When the game starts the confidence of all pitches is neutral. You dont start with poor confidence. Also, how am I supposed to lower the pitch confidence of the opposing pitcher other than by creating perfect contact? What if his pitches don't hang even with low confidence?
I will have to get a larger sample-size, but for now everything seems to indicate that 15s land as basehits at a larger clip vs seemingly better players (I'm not yet sure whether it would be the player's ranking, record or whatnot that would determine "better" though if this was indeed the case). Perhaps you would get the "fairest" form of gameplay in a matchup between two identically ranked guys with identical records.
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?
-
I have never looked at confidence at first pitch. But I can tell you that early on confidence changes definitely within the first inning. It changes by lack of use and result. I tend to think they don’t start even because FB confidence always seems higher.
-
You can lower confidence by hitting the pitch. Or by taking the pitch for a ball. I actually think the perceived sense of comeback logic is a function of players not properly manipulating confidence. If raise the pitch count it means you are throwing relatively more balls, this confidence goes down.
-
“Deserve” is an Interesting term. Irl Does the player who practices more and eats healthy deserve to play better. Yes. does that mean that it ends up that way. NO!!! There are other factors involved including strength of comp, style of comp, timing, latent skill, luck etc. that have a greater impact on results.
Let me get this right...
Instead of user input, latent skill (which means what, hidden skill? what is that?) and luck should have a greater influence on batting outcomes than actual inputs?
Strength of comp? What does that mean? My results on a good/squared should vary based on how good my opponent is?
Style of comp? What does this mean? How exactly would the playing style of my opponent influence the outcome of a good/squared ball?
Timing is already included in my analysis when I refer to 15/N -> The N indicates that the ball was batted at the best possible timing-window.
Interesting takes to say the least.
Another strawman argument. I never said at all about what “should” be the case.
Latent skill - look it up
Style - to simplify the concept. Let’s call it user tendencies. If I only swing at low pitches or steal like crazy or use the shift those things impact the game.Please stop derailing the thread with personal attacks. Just not cool. Plus it undercuts whatever point you are trying to make
I googled latent skill and found nothing. Latent generally means hidden. As I didn't understand, I asked for a clarification.
Why would your tendencies influence the outcome of a 15/N? I'm gonna avoid reading into this to avoid straw manning you. What do you mean?
Also, kindly point to any personal remarks made by me in this thread. The only one I can identify is you calling the OP laughable.
-
