inevitability of solo league success?

idle_dreams73 · 07-01-2007, 10:09 AM

I think ootp2007 is a great game as it is.
But, I I tend to feel a bit discouraged and disappointed in reading so many reports that being able to take a solo team to the playoffs and an eventual championship is a seeming inevitability...or, so it has begun to appear to me from what I've read.

Has anyone had any success in setting up a solo league where their managerial results were more realistic (albeit less glamorous)? What do others recommend?

Is it necessarily the case that a human player will always be superior to AI?

It is fun to win...but knowing that I'm going to win within a few seasons takes some of the fun away...especially when starting off.

Thoughts on this? Links to previous posts about this topic I haven't come across yet?
Thanks.

1998 Yankees · 07-01-2007, 10:26 AM

Thoughts:

I don't find this game that easy. More so this year. Maybe that's just because I stink.
Would you want to play a game that is perpetually frustrating? I would like to know that if I play this game long enough, learn it inside and out, and become skilled, I will win eventually.

Regardless, there are ways to make it more difficult if you want to; here is a link to a thread from last year, I looked it over and I think that what bp_ and I said to that fellow then about OOTP 2006 still pertains to 2007:

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=130638

Notice what we said about house rules. You could do that as well, such things as purposely not trading or drafting well, but we found those to be lame.

akw4572 · 07-01-2007, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by idle_dreams73

I think ootp2007 is a great game as it is.
But, I I tend to feel a bit discouraged and disappointed in reading so many reports that being able to take a solo team to the playoffs and an eventual championship is a seeming inevitability...or, so it has begun to appear to me from what I've read.

Has anyone had any success in setting up a solo league where their managerial results were more realistic (albeit less glamorous)? What do others recommend?

Is it necessarily the case that a human player will always be superior to AI?

It is fun to win...but knowing that I'm going to win within a few seasons takes some of the fun away...especially when starting off.

Thoughts on this? Links to previous posts about this topic I haven't come across yet?
Thanks.

An easy way to eliminate that. Have the computer draft for you, and sign free agents for you. That makes you on par with every other computer GM, and you are just a manager.

idle_dreams73 · 07-01-2007, 11:00 AM

Thank you for your response...it is encouraging. I've also been reading through the dynasty forum to get more of a sense of what leads to those frequent success stories.
I think I will try setting the AI to either 'favor prospects' or 'heavily favor prospects' as well as having the trade difficulty set on hard... maybe that will reduce the chances that I'll be able to so easily dominate the league in the future.

idle_dreams73 · 07-01-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akw4572

An easy way to eliminate that. Have the computer draft for you, and sign free agents for you. That makes you on par with every other computer GM, and you are just a manager.

Good thought, I'll consider that too.

RchW · 07-01-2007, 11:42 AM

Play with talent (potential) only or with ratings off. I turn on ratings for the draft just to give a little help.

Ratings and potential give you just too much X-ray vision IMO especially on the decline side of player development. Much of the success I have when ratings and pot are on is in trading or not signing good players that have started to decline. By doing this you generate a team that is always improving relative to the rest of the teams.

It is very unrealistic to trade that 33 year-old 1B who went 0.332/0.450/0.576, yet you know he's going down.

I liked akw4572's suggestion. It may be frustrating but an interesting test of baseball managing skills.

Another suggestion. Some may already do this. Play normally (for you). Build up a team to win the WS or just be in the playoffs. Then quit and take over the worst team, rinse and repeat. Do this a few times and you will have a few powerhouse teams that will be difficult to beat.

RchW · 07-01-2007, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akw4572

An easy way to eliminate that. Have the computer draft for you, and sign free agents for you. That makes you on par with every other computer GM, and you are just a manager.

What about trades?

DavidWatts · 07-01-2007, 11:49 AM

Give akw4572's suggestion a try. I have been playing that way for several seasons. I even allow the computer to make my trades. I allow myself the ability to make 1 trade a season, but often fail to do so. This way of playing the game can be frustrating, as the computer will often trade away one of your favorite players. That being said, doesn't that happen in real baseball. Remember when Ruben Sierra was forced on Joe Torre? While managing the Reds, about a month into the 85 season, I traded Eric Davis for Cal Ripkin. Ripkin proceeded to spend most of 85 on the DL. His 86 season was incredible and I made great strides finishing in second place. I was pumped for the start of the 87 season. How pissed do you think I was when I received the personal message informing me that my GM had traded Ripkin back to the Orioles for Gary Gaetti?

I would love to see future versions of the game have both GM mode and managers mode. As a manager, it would be great if you could look at the currant GM's record and stratagy. Much like Joe Girardi just did with the Orioles job/ and what he should have done before taking the Marlins job. You could choose a job with a team that is rebuilding, a team that favors prospects,one that is heavily active in the free agent market, etc etc. Just my 2 cents worth. I know I am in the minority here, but I simply like managing my teams games and watching how a league develops.

I love this game

akw4572 · 07-01-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RchW

What about trades?

You can only make a trade when the computer makes you an offer. I haven't gone as far as allowing the computer to do my call ups, etc. I want to control my roster at the major league level.

Long_Long_Name · 07-01-2007, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akw4572

An easy way to eliminate that. Have the computer draft for you, and sign free agents for you. That makes you on par with every other computer GM, and you are just a manager.

unless you're like me, and roster management is pretty much what you're interested in. I'd never do that.

Talent-only is a lot of fun, I find. I haven't played with ratings in... years.

AD31 · 07-01-2007, 12:25 PM

I do agree that like any sports game (sim or console) it is always easy to beat a computer AI.

I have been able to turn around 3 franchises in 25 years. But I only have 2 championships to show for it (injuries!! always right before the playoffs).

But somethings I do do to make it more difficult:

Keep pick compensation on. I know that it does not work right, but when my team is good, I need to give up a pick if I sign a free agent.

Limit myself to one type A or type B free agent. For the above reason. Knowing that I will only lose one pick, I can't load up on good players.

Set my market to tiny. Let the owner have control over the budget.

Don't fleece the computer in trades.

I am considering turning coaches off. It seems to easy for me to hire the best coaches around, especially once the team is good.

AD31 · 07-01-2007, 12:28 PM

Dola,

I also only play as the GM or as the manager. I do not do both. SO I have to pick a manager that will have the same strategy tendencies I would have. It is very frustrating as the GM to call a guy up and see the manager play some scrub because he has great defensive ratings. This makes me have to plan out my roster with regards to how I think the manager will handle the players.

RchW · 07-01-2007, 12:47 PM

It does depend on what you consider success. For me it is winning the WS. In my current favorite solo league, as Texas, it took me 6 years to make the playoffs. I won the WS in year 9 and year 14, year 17 and 18. May make it three in a row this year. So I'm dominant now and have to decide if I should quit and run the worst team again.

Interestingly in the last 12 seasons the LA Dodgers have made the WS six times and won only once. Pretty good for the AI.

akw4572 · 07-01-2007, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Long_Long_Name

unless you're like me, and roster management is pretty much what you're interested in. I'd never do that.

Talent-only is a lot of fun, I find. I haven't played with ratings in... years.

To each his own..........that's why the game if so customizable.

1998 Yankees · 07-01-2007, 02:18 PM

idle_dreams, I would be interested if you were to come back someday to post how these suggestions worked out for you.

james17 · 07-01-2007, 03:30 PM

Playing with a salary cap and a small market team is a challenge for me.

idle_dreams73 · 07-01-2007, 03:37 PM

Thanks to everyone for the wonderful discussion and ideas. So much to try. I will post again once I've tried some things out and see how it works.

DavidWatts · 07-01-2007, 05:01 PM

baseball is the one sport that is yet to have a gm that also manages the team. That is why I think this game should have a strictly manager mode. Roster management is a big part of this game, but if you make trades, sign free agents etc, you are a GM, not a manager. If you play your games out and don't sim them, you are managing. GM duties should be available, but this is a baseball sim, not a basketball, football or soccass sim. I simpy have no interest in ticket prices, contract length etc. I like to feel like a baseball manager. That is why in past versions I hated the send the runner choices.

Long_Long_Name · 07-01-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidWatts

baseball is the one sport that is yet to have a gm that also manages the team.

I guess you're talking about MLB, but... really? Wow. I mean, if anything, baseball's the only major team sport where anyone who's ever played little league could do the job instead of the pros and have minimal impact on the record, I'm sure any GM in MLB would not really hurt his team by being the manager instead of the guy paid to do it. So yeah, it surprises me, I guess

.

Charlie Hough · 07-01-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidWatts

baseball is the one sport that is yet to have a gm that also manages the team.

Actually, there were a number of managers who also handled player personnel in the early decades of baseball. The most prevalent was Connie Mack of the Philadelphia Athletics. He handled all aspects of baseball operations, and he even became the owner of the franchise in 1936. He was a manager/owner/GM from 1936-1950.

John McGraw of the New York Giants was another example. He became part-owner of the Giants in 1919 and was manager/owner/GM until 1932.

In a way, OOTPBB is a throwback to those early baseball roots, where it was fairly common for a manager to have total control over baseball operations. It's unrealistic for contemporary leagues, but it's a realistic option for historical play. However, you can always have the AI serve as the GM and stick to being a field manager.

07-01-2007, 10:09 AM	#1
idle_dreams73 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 27	inevitability of solo league success? I think ootp2007 is a great game as it is. But, I I tend to feel a bit discouraged and disappointed in reading so many reports that being able to take a solo team to the playoffs and an eventual championship is a seeming inevitability...or, so it has begun to appear to me from what I've read. Has anyone had any success in setting up a solo league where their managerial results were more realistic (albeit less glamorous)? What do others recommend? Is it necessarily the case that a human player will always be superior to AI? It is fun to win...but knowing that I'm going to win within a few seasons takes some of the fun away...especially when starting off. Thoughts on this? Links to previous posts about this topic I haven't come across yet? Thanks.

07-01-2007, 10:26 AM	#2
1998 Yankees Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Yankee Stadium, back in 1998. Posts: 8,645	Thoughts: I don't find this game that easy. More so this year. Maybe that's just because I stink. Would you want to play a game that is perpetually frustrating? I would like to know that if I play this game long enough, learn it inside and out, and become skilled, I will win eventually. Regardless, there are ways to make it more difficult if you want to; here is a link to a thread from last year, I looked it over and I think that what bp_ and I said to that fellow then about OOTP 2006 still pertains to 2007: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=130638 Notice what we said about house rules. You could do that as well, such things as purposely not trading or drafting well, but we found those to be lame.

07-01-2007, 11:42 AM	#6
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	Play with talent (potential) only or with ratings off. I turn on ratings for the draft just to give a little help. Ratings and potential give you just too much X-ray vision IMO especially on the decline side of player development. Much of the success I have when ratings and pot are on is in trading or not signing good players that have started to decline. By doing this you generate a team that is always improving relative to the rest of the teams. It is very unrealistic to trade that 33 year-old 1B who went 0.332/0.450/0.576, yet you know he's going down. I liked akw4572's suggestion. It may be frustrating but an interesting test of baseball managing skills. Another suggestion. Some may already do this. Play normally (for you). Build up a team to win the WS or just be in the playoffs. Then quit and take over the worst team, rinse and repeat. Do this a few times and you will have a few powerhouse teams that will be difficult to beat. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

07-01-2007, 12:47 PM	#13
RchW Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Toronto ON by way of Glasgow UK Posts: 15,629	It does depend on what you consider success. For me it is winning the WS. In my current favorite solo league, as Texas, it took me 6 years to make the playoffs. I won the WS in year 9 and year 14, year 17 and 18. May make it three in a row this year. So I'm dominant now and have to decide if I should quit and run the worst team again. Interestingly in the last 12 seasons the LA Dodgers have made the WS six times and won only once. Pretty good for the AI. __________________ Cheers RichW If you’re looking for a good cause to donate money to please consider a Donation to Parkinson’s Canada. It may help me have a better future and if not me, someone else. Thanks. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Frank Wilhoit

07-01-2007, 11:00 AM	#4
idle_dreams73 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 27	Thank you for your response...it is encouraging. I've also been reading through the dynasty forum to get more of a sense of what leads to those frequent success stories. I think I will try setting the AI to either 'favor prospects' or 'heavily favor prospects' as well as having the trade difficulty set on hard... maybe that will reduce the chances that I'll be able to so easily dominate the league in the future.

07-01-2007, 11:49 AM	#8
DavidWatts Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Shreveport Posts: 51 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	Give akw4572's suggestion a try. I have been playing that way for several seasons. I even allow the computer to make my trades. I allow myself the ability to make 1 trade a season, but often fail to do so. This way of playing the game can be frustrating, as the computer will often trade away one of your favorite players. That being said, doesn't that happen in real baseball. Remember when Ruben Sierra was forced on Joe Torre? While managing the Reds, about a month into the 85 season, I traded Eric Davis for Cal Ripkin. Ripkin proceeded to spend most of 85 on the DL. His 86 season was incredible and I made great strides finishing in second place. I was pumped for the start of the 87 season. How pissed do you think I was when I received the personal message informing me that my GM had traded Ripkin back to the Orioles for Gary Gaetti? I would love to see future versions of the game have both GM mode and managers mode. As a manager, it would be great if you could look at the currant GM's record and stratagy. Much like Joe Girardi just did with the Orioles job/ and what he should have done before taking the Marlins job. You could choose a job with a team that is rebuilding, a team that favors prospects,one that is heavily active in the free agent market, etc etc. Just my 2 cents worth. I know I am in the minority here, but I simply like managing my teams games and watching how a league develops. I love this game

07-01-2007, 12:25 PM	#11
AD31 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 302	I do agree that like any sports game (sim or console) it is always easy to beat a computer AI. I have been able to turn around 3 franchises in 25 years. But I only have 2 championships to show for it (injuries!! always right before the playoffs). But somethings I do do to make it more difficult: Keep pick compensation on. I know that it does not work right, but when my team is good, I need to give up a pick if I sign a free agent. Limit myself to one type A or type B free agent. For the above reason. Knowing that I will only lose one pick, I can't load up on good players. Set my market to tiny. Let the owner have control over the budget. Don't fleece the computer in trades. I am considering turning coaches off. It seems to easy for me to hire the best coaches around, especially once the team is good.

07-01-2007, 12:28 PM	#12
AD31 Major Leagues Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 302	Dola, I also only play as the GM or as the manager. I do not do both. SO I have to pick a manager that will have the same strategy tendencies I would have. It is very frustrating as the GM to call a guy up and see the manager play some scrub because he has great defensive ratings. This makes me have to plan out my roster with regards to how I think the manager will handle the players.

07-01-2007, 02:18 PM	#15
1998 Yankees Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Yankee Stadium, back in 1998. Posts: 8,645	idle_dreams, I would be interested if you were to come back someday to post how these suggestions worked out for you.

07-01-2007, 03:30 PM	#16
james17 All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,305	Playing with a salary cap and a small market team is a challenge for me.

07-01-2007, 03:37 PM	#17
idle_dreams73 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 27	Thanks to everyone for the wonderful discussion and ideas. So much to try. I will post again once I've tried some things out and see how it works.

07-01-2007, 05:01 PM	#18
DavidWatts Minors (Single A) Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Shreveport Posts: 51 Infractions: 0/1 (1)	baseball is the one sport that is yet to have a gm that also manages the team. That is why I think this game should have a strictly manager mode. Roster management is a big part of this game, but if you make trades, sign free agents etc, you are a GM, not a manager. If you play your games out and don't sim them, you are managing. GM duties should be available, but this is a baseball sim, not a basketball, football or soccass sim. I simpy have no interest in ticket prices, contract length etc. I like to feel like a baseball manager. That is why in past versions I hated the send the runner choices.