Drafting AI,Lahman vs Garlon

Scoman · 04-29-2007, 09:56 PM

For those who have played both databases ,Lahman and Garlon. Is there a difference in the drafting AI in the two. I have been playing Lahman and it seems that the AI teams just dont draft smart,or even close,and I always come out of every Inaugural draft,or yearly draft with a much better quality draft,kinda takes the fun out of it,and it shows in my record. I was just wondering if any users of the Garlon database have noticed any differences. One example is Ty Cobb,who usually goes like 10-12 in the 1905 yearly draft.

AD31 · 04-29-2007, 11:14 PM

When I use a DB, I generally use Garlon's. I never noticed the AI. But I use it because I like the fact the players are younger, giving me more of a chance to mess up/or develop them well.

I play with coaches and minors on. Lahman just seemed more predictable.

Mr. Capo · 05-08-2007, 08:26 PM

The AI isn't a property of the database. So the game won't draft smarter or dumber from one DB to another. Some of the players might be rated slightly differently, so they might go higher or lower in a draft from one DB to another, and depending on your impression of how good they are (were), one might seem more realistic to you than another.

Lahman's is totally accurate. The stats are real. But it was not made for OOTP, nor was OOTP made for it. Arod-Garlon, Gambo, etc. have adjusted the real world stats with OOTP in mind, in order to make a more satisfying game experience. Whether they've succeeded is subjective, and depends on how you play the game, what your expectations are, etc.

Scoman · 05-08-2007, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Capo

The AI isn't a property of the database. So the game won't draft smarter or dumber from one DB to another. Some of the players might be rated slightly differently, so they might go higher or lower in a draft from one DB to another, and depending on your impression of how good they are (were), one might seem more realistic to you than another.

Lahman's is totally accurate. The stats are real. But it was not made for OOTP, nor was OOTP made for it. Arod-Garlon, Gambo, etc. have adjusted the real world stats with OOTP in mind, in order to make a more satisfying game experience. Whether they've succeeded is subjective, and depends on how you play the game, what your expectations are, etc.

Actually,I worded this wrong,I know the Ai will stay the same from database to database,I meant did one draft better than the other , according to the ratings.

Mr. Capo · 05-08-2007, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scoman

One example is Ty Cobb,who usually goes like 10-12 in the 1905 yearly draft.

IMHO, guys like Cobb, Lajoie, Wagner, always seem to go lower than they should, in either A-G or Lahman (the two I've played). All those drafted ahead of them are starting pitchers. The AI always gobbles up starters, even mediocre ones, before taking HOF superstar batters.

Nukester · 05-08-2007, 10:58 PM

I think the problem is that the CPU will continue to grab starting pitchers until they have a good stock of them, especially for inaugural drafts and early century amatuer drafts (mostly for the first round in the amatuer drafts, and several rounds of an inagural draft). I have a house rule that says that I cant take a batter in the amatuer draft until the 3rd round, or until the CPU takes a batter, whichever comes first.

04-29-2007, 09:56 PM	#1
Scoman All Star Starter Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: heath ohio Posts: 1,831	Drafting AI,Lahman vs Garlon For those who have played both databases ,Lahman and Garlon. Is there a difference in the drafting AI in the two. I have been playing Lahman and it seems that the AI teams just dont draft smart,or even close,and I always come out of every Inaugural draft,or yearly draft with a much better quality draft,kinda takes the fun out of it,and it shows in my record. I was just wondering if any users of the Garlon database have noticed any differences. One example is Ty Cobb,who usually goes like 10-12 in the 1905 yearly draft. Last edited by Scoman; 04-29-2007 at 09:58 PM.

05-08-2007, 10:58 PM	#6
Nukester All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Newburgh, NY Posts: 1,923	I think the problem is that the CPU will continue to grab starting pitchers until they have a good stock of them, especially for inaugural drafts and early century amatuer drafts (mostly for the first round in the amatuer drafts, and several rounds of an inagural draft). I have a house rule that says that I cant take a batter in the amatuer draft until the 3rd round, or until the CPU takes a batter, whichever comes first. Last edited by Nukester; 05-08-2007 at 10:59 PM.

04-29-2007, 11:14 PM	#2
AD31 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 302	When I use a DB, I generally use Garlon's. I never noticed the AI. But I use it because I like the fact the players are younger, giving me more of a chance to mess up/or develop them well. I play with coaches and minors on. Lahman just seemed more predictable.

05-08-2007, 08:26 PM	#3
Mr. Capo Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 240	The AI isn't a property of the database. So the game won't draft smarter or dumber from one DB to another. Some of the players might be rated slightly differently, so they might go higher or lower in a draft from one DB to another, and depending on your impression of how good they are (were), one might seem more realistic to you than another. Lahman's is totally accurate. The stats are real. But it was not made for OOTP, nor was OOTP made for it. Arod-Garlon, Gambo, etc. have adjusted the real world stats with OOTP in mind, in order to make a more satisfying game experience. Whether they've succeeded is subjective, and depends on how you play the game, what your expectations are, etc.