You must have Javascript enabled to view this content.

Post History

"I wish there was no evidence to support these scripted comeback theories."
 

Your wish is granted.

It would be better to fix them, but if the only choice is no knuckleballers or the way they are now, I'd take the former, yes.

" This year was very obvious that the game gave a certain advantage to one of the two players at certain moments. "

<insert graphic of someone facepalming here>

I just played a game and got a FQ. I accepted. It doesn't really matter, does it? Play time is play time, and it doesn't cost you anything. Maybe people are short on time, or want to try a different lineup or something.

 

If by "hard time" you mean "flailing helplessly" and "swing hard in case you accidentally make contact" -- then yes. :)

I have no ability to place the PCI that well.

But the difference in PCI between power hitters and contact hitters is very noticeable.

The speeds don't seem all that fast to me either, to be honest. Maybe it's subtle or depends on certain factors.

Boy, I asked for more diamonds... When you guys deliver, you really deliver!

I am sorry I haven't been able to play more the last three days. RL stuff hit me upside the head over the weekend.

Enjoying playing with the new pitchers. Hitting on Legend is incredibly hard though, especially for someone as bad as me, so it's hard to judge things.

I will say those PCIs are a lot more viable for contact than power hitters, hopefully that continues.

It's in double quotes, meaning I don't really think that. I'm saying things happen in baseball that if they happened in this game, people would say it was scripted.

Exactly. It's baseball. Weird things happen.

My go-to example of "real-life baseball is scripted": Dave Stieb had two no-hitters broken up with 2 outs and 2 strikes in the 9th -- in consecutive starts.

What are the odds of that?

It's insanely simple.

As just one random example, you could put code in that based on a certain condition (say, batting team is down by more than 5 runs) then you compute a random number from 0 to 1 and if it's over 0.9 you change a warning track shot to a scraper home run.

There are a zillion other ways to do it that are more sophisticated, but this is not in any way difficult. I guarantee you mobile game developers do it all the time with their little boxes.

I worked QA for a company that implemented the positive version of this, a "mercy rule" that increased your odds of getting good stuff from packs if you had bad luck for a long time.

I've been programming for a long time.

Trust me, shifting the odds of any computation involving a random element is very simple. You just add an adjustment factor based on whatever conditions you choose that tilts the result toward or away a particular outcome.

The guys who made this game could do it n their sleep. I just see no evidence that they have, and no reason why they'd want to.

Actually, it would be trivially easy for them to code comeback logic.

There's just no reason for them to do so, and there's a much simpler explanation for what is going on here.

That's a commendable attitude. Seriously.

OP was criticized for using language that is 100% correct. That's all I have to say.

Editor here. "An FQ" is correct. You use the indefinite article that matches how you would verbalize the abbreviation.

In the US people write "an herb" and in the UK they tend to write "a herb."

I've now opened 100k of these packs three times. Each time I got 1 low diamond and that's it.

Souvenirs are gates. They are in there to slow down progress and to encourage people to spend money.

These are classic psychological tools used in microtransaction games and I assure you they are not going anywhere.

Even if they get rid of souvenirs, they'd just replace them with something else equally annoying. The annoyance is deliberate, to try to get you to spend money.

People are going to complain regardless. The focus should be on providing us the tools we need for testing.

Actually, most of the people flaming others who want a decent assortment of cards to test are the ones who don't get it.

This isn't about card hoarding in the alpha, because it doesn't stick anyway. Why people don't understand this is beyond me.

In an alpha where all the cards get wiped, there is none, nil, zilch, zero reason to severely restrict the availability of cards. Furthermore, making everyone spend many minutes each day mindlessly buying and ripping packs is a giant waste of time.

All of this is inefficient, flies in the face of standard alpha/beta test protocols, and accomplishes nothing.

"The Biggio thing might be the Sunshine kids logo he always wore."

That's exactly what it is.

OP, nice writeup.

There is RNG in real hitting. There should be RNG in the game as well.