Here's a VERY good read (IMO) about OOTPB2006

Kyros · 06-17-2006, 07:20 AM

http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/ (aka Recyle Bin *website name)

Kyros · 06-17-2006, 07:24 AM

Another good read here (http://sportsgamer.blogspot.com/) by a writer/reviewer named Bill Abner and Todd. IMO, Bill is one of the best baseball game reviewers in the out here. He is well respected.

Some of the things Bill wrote;

Quote:

OK first off I have reached the conclusion that OOTP 2006 has the potential tp be the best baseball game ever made, if SI fixes the AI and some of the other issues. Right now, though, it's not quite ready to be crowned King. The foundation is there though. It's just hard to live with the AI gaffes.

Quote:

I finally saw it. People have been harping about the weirdo AI and today I finally got a dose of it.

First off, the trade AI seems, at least on its face, to be bad because it doesn't take age into account when trading with itself. If you set trades to "hard" it's tough to screw the AI but it apparantly loves to screw itself. Case in point:

Victoria trades a 28 year old .300 hitting catcher with a 100 arm. He's one of the best young catchers in the league. They move him for a good LFer..who is 37 years old. No way would this trade ever happen. Worst still, on April 15th..he's cut outright (the 37 year old) and then the next day signed to a 1 year deal for 2.5 million by another team. Totally choatic, eh?

Here's hoping patch #2, which is due out I think sometime in July, takes care of some of this stuff.

KurtBevacqua · 06-17-2006, 02:05 PM

Baseball Mogul 2006 for free. Good deal.

jcalvert · 06-17-2006, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyros

http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/ (aka Recyle Bin *website name)

Thanks for the kind words. Chris has done a heck of a job with his coverage of OOTPB 2006.

enuttage · 06-17-2006, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyros

Another good read here (http://sportsgamer.blogspot.com/) by a writer/reviewer named Bill Abner and Todd. IMO, Bill is one of the best baseball game reviewers in the out here. He is well respected.

Ah. Good ol' Bill. A blast from the 3DO past.

Good to see he's out and about (and posting here again).

Syd Thrift · 06-17-2006, 03:10 PM

I have a much bigger issue with "trade a guy and then cut him" than "this trade would never happen." There are a million variables when it comes to making a trade - how is the team's financial situation? Does the team think they're going to lose the player anyway and just want to get something, anything, for him? How is the market on catchers right now?

I'm not saying the trade AI still doesn't need a good bit of tweaking, but the failure of a team to carry a strategy from one day to the next is what really irks me. IRL, you're going to stick with that old LF if for no other reason than to attempt to appease your fans. He's got veteran leadership, you say as you stick him in the lineup day after day. He's helping out the youngsters, you argue as he and his .250 average with middling power takes at-bats away from the kids. Fact is, when you engage in a blockbuster trade like this, you don't just let the pieces fall away. Since 99% of what a real-life GM does is avoid getting himself fired, you do whatever you can to justify that move, even if that means putting a (slightly) inferior product on the field.

Have I mentioned my EU style "stability" idea wherein GMs (human GMs too) who do weird things like this too often get fired, have trade requests refused, and experience poorer play from their charges because they can't be trusted to play by the unwritten rules of baseball? I'm all about market efficiency and taking the road less traveled, but there have to be consequences for being a maverick. Put a rule like this in and I think even AI GMs will be more reticent to do stuff like this.

treedom · 06-17-2006, 03:27 PM

Bad boy points, eh? That's a great idea, Syd! Also, pitchers should only be able to bean hitters if they have a causus belli against them.

Wabner · 06-17-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

I have a much bigger issue with "trade a guy and then cut him" than "this trade would never happen." There are a million variables when it comes to making a trade - how is the team's financial situation? Does the team think they're going to lose the player anyway and just want to get something, anything, for him? How is the market on catchers right now?

Well, to be fair to...me, I guess, the example that was lifted by Kyros doesn't go into uber detail because I didn't think there was a need to do it because of a previous example I had posted a few days earlier discussing financials. No team is in financials need in the league because everyone had managed the cap well.

I know this fictional league backward and forward because it's the online league that I run, so I know the teams pretty well. It's the year 2023 after all.

In this particular case, Victoria moved a 28 year old catcher with solid scout ratings who was coming off a .314 21HR season. He's also the next Johnny Bench in terms of defense. A good catcher in this league is in fact a prized commodity. The backup catcher is a fair player, who could start on a lot of teams, although the 28 year old is clearly his superior (and he's also cheap because he's only a 3rd year player). The 37 LF year old is seeing his ratings fall. He's clearly on the downswing. He's also a lot more expensive than the catcher.

I really have no problem with the Victoria GM moving the young catcher but they should have gotten a hell of a lot more for him than they did. I guess you can come up with reasons why they'd do it. Maybe the catcher is Terrell Owens' cousin? Hell I dunno. But there are a lot of examples, too many I think, where the AI does not take age into account nearly enough when trading with itself.

I LIKE it when the CPU makes what I feel is a bad trade. The game needs "bad" GMs who make suspect deals. My issue is that this example follows a pattern and doesn't seem to be a random GM screw up.

TonyJ · 06-17-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by treedom

Bad boy points, eh? That's a great idea, Syd! Also, pitchers should only be able to bean hitters if they have a causus belli against them.

Also, there should from time to time be historical events that cause certain changes to your players. Like, your hitters would all get plus five to contact and power.

Doughnuts? · 06-17-2006, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KurtBevacqua

Baseball Mogul 2006 for free. Good deal.

That's too much for that game.

06-17-2006, 07:20 AM	#1
Kyros All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 976	Here's a VERY good read (IMO) about OOTPB2006 http://www.calvertgames.com/cgblog/ (aka Recyle Bin *website name)

06-17-2006, 02:05 PM	#3
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	Baseball Mogul 2006 for free. Good deal. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

06-17-2006, 03:27 PM	#7
treedom Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2002 Location: Transylvania Posts: 2,900	Bad boy points, eh? That's a great idea, Syd! Also, pitchers should only be able to bean hitters if they have a causus belli against them. __________________ A rake and a roustabout.

06-17-2006, 03:10 PM	#6
Syd Thrift Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 10,618	I have a much bigger issue with "trade a guy and then cut him" than "this trade would never happen." There are a million variables when it comes to making a trade - how is the team's financial situation? Does the team think they're going to lose the player anyway and just want to get something, anything, for him? How is the market on catchers right now? I'm not saying the trade AI still doesn't need a good bit of tweaking, but the failure of a team to carry a strategy from one day to the next is what really irks me. IRL, you're going to stick with that old LF if for no other reason than to attempt to appease your fans. He's got veteran leadership, you say as you stick him in the lineup day after day. He's helping out the youngsters, you argue as he and his .250 average with middling power takes at-bats away from the kids. Fact is, when you engage in a blockbuster trade like this, you don't just let the pieces fall away. Since 99% of what a real-life GM does is avoid getting himself fired, you do whatever you can to justify that move, even if that means putting a (slightly) inferior product on the field. Have I mentioned my EU style "stability" idea wherein GMs (human GMs too) who do weird things like this too often get fired, have trade requests refused, and experience poorer play from their charges because they can't be trusted to play by the unwritten rules of baseball? I'm all about market efficiency and taking the road less traveled, but there have to be consequences for being a maverick. Put a rule like this in and I think even AI GMs will be more reticent to do stuff like this.