Slashdot Mirror


Behind the Moralgorithm

LA Weekly has up an editorial about quantifying the intangible in video games. He discusses NBA Live's attmempt to incorporate the ineffable something that makes winning teams win. From the article: "...I'd occasionally seen the moralgorithm needle hit the red; that every so often the game goes supernatural. Like one matchup, where I was playing the Sonics against the Heat on Xbox Live, and I could tell something really clicked for me when Jerome James, my oafish center, hit two three-pointers. Then Vladimir Radmanovic, whose little polygonal computer face seemed to look as surprised as I was, stole the ball from 10 feet away and passed to Antonio Daniels on a fast break that drew so much moralgorithmic momentum, I swear Ray Allen levitated up court for the most improbable alley-oop of all time."

38 of 47 comments (clear)

  1. The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA:
    There must be some kind of algorithm that generates morale, I suggested, a moralgorithm -- and my team's was off.
    Setting aside for a moment the sheer loser-ness of this statement....right up there with 'my controller isn't working' and 'I wasn't ready', it seems that Josh is attempting to coin a new term for the gaming lexicon. It's a pretty heavy-handed attempt...the word 'moralgorithm' shows up seven times in the article (including the title).

    Please, do your part for the gaming community and never use this 'word'...let's try to give this thing a clean, quick death.
    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    1. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by m4dm4n · · Score: 1

      Moralgorithm is not pleased.

    2. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's what you get from horrible Genetic experiments trying to cross marketing and Engineers , You get enginteers.

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    3. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by Will2k_is_here · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with that?! I single handedly introduced the word "guesstimate" to the English language.

      *ducks* *runs*

    4. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by mausmalone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When I saw this title show up in my RSS reader, I thought it would be an aritlce about morals in AI programming. What it is is something much dumber.

      --
      -=-=-=-=-=
      I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
    5. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by Megane · · Score: 1

      I don't think "moralgorithm" is cromulent enough. Until I read the article, I thought it was about "moral" issues, not "morale" issues. Like how nice a team will play, or whether it will try to get away with fouls that the refs miss, or if they will just go for the hardest fouls they can.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    6. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      I singlehandedly solved the world hunger problem - I inventing eating.
      --King Steve.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    7. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Reading this crap made me think of a new word, too: moronotony

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    8. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Expect more "You have to wait 2 minutes between posts, you have waited 3 hours" messages.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    9. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by Silverlancer · · Score: 1

      But... but...

      Moralgorithm is a perfectly cromulous word!

    10. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

      *high five*

      --
      Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga
    11. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      The verebidian apius of the word Moralgorithm is compuscious at berant , The vetian idorium that Moralgotithm is cromulant is Kadazian or wernotopian .
      sompicious is sempaciously megnanting the apius of the word Moralgorithm and its entire habigaciary zoporitisim is entirely Gugstapodian

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    12. Re:The word for today is 'moralgorithm'... by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      I prefer margineers.

      They perform some sort of negligible hearing... And are related to butter and corn.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  2. A worrying trend... by linds.r · · Score: 1

    I would've thought the swings of a teams morale were the kind of things preferably left without simulation. For one, I am entirely uninterested in the happiness of my players and would rather like my wins to be based more upon my skills and/or my morale at the time. Such things are best left to the Sims or Nintendogs.

    p.s. Moral-gorithm? Initial reaction included `... * -3.5[kittens_flipped_off] * ...'

    1. Re:A worrying trend... by Bin_jammin · · Score: 1
      Seriously! It's not like you've invited the Bulls and the Spurs over to your house to play a little Xbox and they shot you down, claiming they had to help their moms with yardwork.

      Also, all the calls you've made to join your favorite team for some hoop time end with vague excuses about the coach not liking strange friends hanging around. All this ambiguity amongst your friends in the NBA, and you, will all disappear in the off season when you can hang out like you did back in the day, drinkin' 40s and shootin' ball.

  3. EA Sports' NHL series... by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    Since at least NHL 2001, there's been a morale meter, and when you get it full (by scoring more goals), it seems everyone's stats go up by about 50%. If your bar goes below 25% full (usually hovering between 40 and 60%, peaking at 100% maybe five times in an average game), when the opposing team scores a bunch of goals and body checks, your team loses about 25% of their regular stats.

    This is nothing new.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:EA Sports' NHL series... by the_ed_dawg · · Score: 1
      They did this is NCAA Football 2001, too. Unfortunately, it was fatally flawed. Any time you made a turnover, the meter completely flipped, even if you were up by 50. I also really liked how any time the other team punted, your momentum went down, even if they decided to do it on 4th and inches (indicating that they didn't think they could get a foot of yardage on your defense). They tried to make the concept of mental state in NCAA 2005, but I never noticed a difference between my clutch quarterback and rattled quarterback. They were both equally worthless because EA gimped everybody for playing on the road.

      I'm all for attempts to capture the emotional state of players, but they need to (a) make it subtle and (b) provide an option to turn it off.

      --
      There are two types of people: those prepared for the zombie apocalypse and those who will be eaten.
  4. W (Hat)? by happypizzaguy · · Score: 2, Informative

    I can't be the only one who has absolutley no clue what the quote from the article means.

    --
    "When all else fails, there's always delusion." -Conan O'Brien
  5. After reading this... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    ... I think my IQ dropped five points. And I didn't have that much to spare in the first place...

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:After reading this... by FidelCatsro · · Score: 1

      Don't worry about it , Read the article about 20 more times and you're qualified to get a job in marketing

      --
      The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
    2. Re:After reading this... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Five more times after that and I can become a Slashdot editor :)

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:After reading this... by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hate it when I roll a character with low intelligence. The best you can hope for is a blessed potion of gain ability.

      --
      music lover since 1969
  6. Little? by kryogen1x · · Score: 3, Funny
    From TFA:

    How the little black box knew the Spurs would (probably) win the NBA Finals

    Yeah, sure, the XBox is little. So are blue whales, Hummer H2's and Boeing 747's.

    1. Re:Little? by czarangelus · · Score: 1

      Hey, the point of comparison could be blue supergiants!

      --
      When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him.
  7. Better than catch-up AI by alvinrod · · Score: 2, Informative
    It's at least nice to know that programmers are trying to capture some of the phenomena of how the real game seems to work instead of adding some moronic catch-up AI that I've seen in more than a few games.

    Blow past a car in a racing game, watch as it magically manages to stay on your tail and pass you back, despite the fact that it's a Ford Focus and you're practically driving an F1 car.

    Score some points in a sports game, watch the computer complete every pass, sink every bucket, or score every goal, while your players seem to be inable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Start pounding on the computer in an RTS, watch as it manages to produce enough units to flood the map, or research tech advantages in the blink of an eye to give it an edge.

    While catch-up AI can make the game seem a lot more challenging because it keeps the computer opponent right there with you, it would be a lot nicer to see more programming to simulate things more realistically.

    1. Re:Better than catch-up AI by kryogen1x · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I recall playing NBA Jam on the Genesis. My brother and I were pretty good, but the computer would always seem to be able to keep up no matter what. Near the end of the 4th quarter, it was a tie game so we held the ball until there was like one second left, shot, then hit a two pointer to give us a 94-92 lead. Then, with the remaining time, the computer inbounds, heaves a full court three pointer and swishes to win the game. Now, it wouldn't have been so bad if the computer hadn't done the same thing at the end of first half AND the last three games we played.

      /me hates AI handicap.

    2. Re:Better than catch-up AI by CommiePuddin · · Score: 1

      That sounds more like something that would happen in the arcade, rather than with a home system.

      Just keep pumping in those quarters!

      Then again, I once blew out the computer so bad with cheat-code "fire" in NBA Jam that my SNES locked up. The score was something like 212-36, with seconds remaining in the 4th.

      --
      x = x + ++x; //It's golden.
    3. Re:Better than catch-up AI by reverseengineer · · Score: 1
      Heh, the exact same thing happened to me when I owned NBA Jam for the Genesis- I once had a perfect record going through the entire lineup of games- until I played the Lakers (as the Bulls) and lost a game that had been tight throughout on a buzzer-beater 90-footer lobbed underhand. Ugh.

      In situations like that, it's hard to say exactly what the algorithms in place are doing- in original NBA Jam in particular, you have to remember that almost every decent shooter in the game shot like 70 percent from behind the arc anyway. It could be a case of the game code not allotting sufficient extra difficulty to shots as distance increases, so that the grenade toss from the opposite free throw line isn't that much harder than a 3 from just behind the line. If good shooters can drain the miracle trey 50% of the time, for instance, it's unlikely, but not statistically unreasonable to see three made in three chances. Of course, there could actually be some sort of "last-second shot" bonus, which connects with what TFA is wondering. In that case, maybe knocking down a gamewinner may be far more likely than an identical shot when the game isn't on the line. The question would be then, do you get this bonus as well? If so, then it sucks to die by the sword, but theoretically you'll win some games with circus shots as well. If not, then the computer has an unfair advantage.

      Of course, in the real sports world, there's always been debate over whether certain psychological attributes have a real effect on play- do some players/teams really perform better in clutch time? (Statistics tell us no. The ring collection of Robert Horry tells us maybe.) Is there really such a thing as home-court advantage? Being "in the zone?" Do teams play better or worse when they're down? When they're trying to protect a lead? Does getting blown out in one game measurably affect a team in the next? Are some teams luckier than others?

      The designers of sports video games are confronted with decisions about how/whether to implement these sorts of intangibles. Returning to the venerable NBA Jam, obviously the designers felt there was quite literally something to "hot streaks," and so they added being "on fire," making it even easier to hit shots if you've already made 3 in a row (I remember driving in for dunks to get "on fire," and then shooting exclusively threes from the corners).

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    4. Re:Better than catch-up AI by WaterBreath · · Score: 1

      This would actually make more sense if your score were something like 254, rather than 212. Since the Nintendo was 8-bit, in-game quantities (such as the number of rupees in Zelda) were often restricted to between 0 and 255 if it wasn't necessary to have larger or negative numbers.

      A basketball game is probably not expected to have scores in the 200s, so it's conceivable they didn't worry about the overflow problem. I'm not sure it would cause a crash like yours, but it all depends on their code.

    5. Re:Better than catch-up AI by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      It wasn't due to score- My NBA Jams record on SNES was 312-9. Of course I picked the best team, gave them the worst, and played with all the settings to do it. And shot nothing but 3s with my best shooter.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    6. Re:Better than catch-up AI by Shadarr · · Score: 1

      Also known as rubber-banding. It's one of the reasons I lose interest in most racing games pretty quickly, most recently Wave Race on the GameCube. If you're in first, there's no reason to use turbo because you won't ever get more than a second ahead no matter what you do. I've set a course record while finishing sixth because I wiped out near the end of the race and the whole pack was right behind me. Absolutely idiotic.

  8. Heh heh, NBA Jam... by aendeuryu · · Score: 1

    "He's on fire!"

    You don't know joy until you're playing as Dikembe Mutumbo and raining 3's on the opponent.

  9. Does anyone have a translator link? by arrow · · Score: 1

    I can't seem to get the fish to figure out what language this story is in.

    --
    symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
    1. Re:Does anyone have a translator link? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to get the fish to figure out what language this story is in.

      Marketspeak. No one can translate it, it's a write only language.

      The Babelfish can't understand it because no one can keep one alive long enough around marketing people to translate their brainwaves. They just shrivel up like one of those little peppers you find in your Kung-Pao Chicken only yellow.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  10. Goes back to NBA Jam, too by Anxarcule · · Score: 1

    This goes back even to the old, old versions of NBA Jam that I used to play on emulator. It really didn't matter how skillful you were, because the computer team ended up matching your skill level. If you started dunking and hitting 3s on every possession, then the computer players would start doing it too and your shots would start missing. So basically every single-player game you played had a close score. I can't really say I like this method in a general sense, although I suppose it does cater toward the kids' sports crowd who might not be very good at playing those games.

    1. Re:Goes back to NBA Jam, too by CDLewis · · Score: 1
      It really didn't matter how skillful you were, because the computer team ended up matching your skill level.

      That's "rubber banding," not some sort of 'moralgorithm.'

  11. My Real Life Stats by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

    Me (on being born): Hey! My stats suck!
    GM: Sorry... that's the way I rolled them.
    Me: What are the odds of my highest stat being an 8.
    GM: Sorry... that's the way I rolled them.
    Me: 3d6... and look at all those 6's and 7's...
    GM: 3d SIX? Thought I was supposed to roll 3d FOUR.
    Me: Whew... ok... reroll.
    GM: Sorry... that's the way I rolled them.

    So here I am stuck with low intelligence, wisdom, dexterity and charisma. If it weren't for Slashdot, I wouldn't fit in anywhere!

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  12. NBA Live is AWFUL. by Alkaiser · · Score: 1

    All the things he's talking about happening in the game aren't "features" they're bugs in EA's code, and EA's trying to pass them off as some kind of R&D.

    In NBA Live 2004, I had Karl Malone prepare for a dunk from the side of the basket from 6 feet out. While in mid-air Malone rotated around the hoop and turned his body 180 degress in midair, so he was point towards the other team's basket, 94 feet away. He then proceed to go into his dunk animation, planting the ball squarely into the had of a defender.

    Said defender then picked up the ball and threw it downcourt THROUGH GARY PAYTON'S TORSO to a teammate who then scored.

    That's not morale, that's awful, awful code.

    In NBA Live 2005, I had Lamar Odom take five steps, then throw the ball off the defender's elbow (who had been called for the foul, and was clipping through his body.) and had the ball shoot up in the air at an 85-88 degree angle to arc straight into the hoop. And the FOUL! YES!

    The NBA Live series is horrid. Despite the author's best attempts to have the single most horrid line in that article, talking about "mushin" and a "moralgorithm" but that line belongs to Todd Batty who was referneced as saying:

    "Over time, Batty says, the programmers have fixed most real glitches in the game."

    So me getting blocked through the backboard must not be one of those glitches. Or my players bouncing off the other players in midair when I have the momentum. Or the fact that I can substitute players after the 2nd free throw. Or all the other rules of NBA basketball that EA just ignores.

    You wanna do a study on the quirks that occur in a basketball game? Pick up a game that does it properly first, like NBA 2K5.

    --
    Netjak.com independent reviews of domestic & import video ga