The "Realism" Factor

[darkcloud4579]

In terms of realism and something recent for me, I've found getting rid of stars was the smartest thing I could. I'm using a 2-8 ratings scale, but that's it. I think stars are such a default and you have to wonder with real life teams how GMs will make a deal for guys, get kids back in return and not know they were going to be busts (the Roger Clemens trade from the Blue Jays to the Yankees came to mind just now..) and I think that's part of the challenge is being able to figure out if you can make the right deals for your team with limited information and having to just judge based on what you have, what this person's role will be or whatever.

I think busts are part of the immersion/realism factor, as well as success is.

[MikeBC]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

In terms of realism and something recent for me, I've found getting rid of stars was the smartest thing I could [do].

My stars might as well be off. I've got a five-star starting pitcher who's lost nine of his last ten games (the tenth was a no decision) and I'm in the World Series and am facing the decision on whether or not to put him in for the next game. Stars are doing nothing for me! Ahhh, it feels good to write this down. I'm more nervous about this than I am about the Sox staying alive in real life. The realism factor is there in full force for me!

[injury log]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

GMs will make a deal for guys, get kids back in return and not know they were going to be busts (the Roger Clemens trade from the Blue Jays to the Yankees came to mind just now..)

Clemens was dealt for David Wells, Graeme Lloyd (who was 32 at the time) and Homer Bush (who was 27). No kids involved!

There are, of course, many examples- I think of the Denny Neagle for Jackson Melian, Ed Yarnall, Drew Henson and Brian Reith deal. Henson eventually went back to the Yankees for Wily Mo, which was the only positive for the Reds.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

In terms of realism and something recent for me, I've found getting rid of stars was the smartest thing I could. I'm using a 2-8 ratings scale, but that's it. I think stars are such a default and you have to wonder with real life teams how GMs will make a deal for guys, get kids back in return and not know they were going to be busts (the Roger Clemens trade from the Blue Jays to the Yankees came to mind just now..) and I think that's part of the challenge is being able to figure out if you can make the right deals for your team with limited information and having to just judge based on what you have, what this person's role will be or whatever.

I think busts are part of the immersion/realism factor, as well as success is.

I agree with you on the stars, and like you I still play with scouted ratings because you need something to make judgments by. It's realistic to me to have some sort of subjective opinions being formed about new players, accurately or not. It may sound strange to say, but those who play fictional with no ratings at all, depending solely on statistics, are not playing realistically IMO.

And failure in general is part of the immersion/realism factor for sure. Sometimes it can be a problem to balance the need for realism with the need to win once in a while.

[darkcloud4579]

I meant the David Cone trade from Toronto, not the Wells trade. The Yanks have been in cohoots with the Yankees so many times during the earlier part of the decade, that it's hard for me to keep up. Grr..

And as for playing fictional with no ratings, I tried that for a season and a half and found it to be ridiculous. Especially in my current dynasty where it's four levels of promotion/relegation, stats alone just aren't enough of a measuring tool. You need something else and ratings do that. Especially if you stick to a smaller scale like 2-8 or 1-20 or something. I'm currently using 2-8 and no stars and it's working best when I make trades, because I find myself holding off on deals and makes stuff a lot more "realistic" to me.

[1998 Yankees]

A new direction for this thread, perhaps.

How could the developers enhance the realism of this game?

Do animation and sound play a significant role in enhancing realism as well as entertainment in a text simulation game?

*ducks for cover*

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

A new direction for this thread, perhaps.

How could the developers enhance the realism of this game?

Do animation and sound play a significant role in enhancing realism as well as entertainment in a text simulation game?

*ducks for cover*

I don't care much about sound (I usually have it turned off when I'm not listening to music, and if I'm listening to music, I don't want to hear other sound), but some basic animation (on the level of Earl Weaver Baseball) would be something that adds a lot to the immersion factor of the game.

I've said for years that the in-game aspect of OOTP has a lot of room for improvement. It's okay as it is, but it still feels very much like you're reading a ticker that summarizes the events rather than being present at the events. I don't need to see rendered faces and bats tapping on the plate, but seeing a ball get caught by a highly pixelated outfielder near the wall and thrown home just in time to catch a fuzzy runner trying to score would be great.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I don't care much about sound (I usually have it turned off when I'm not listening to music, and if I'm listening to music, I don't want to hear other sound), but some basic animation (on the level of Earl Weaver Baseball) would be something that adds a lot to the immersion factor of the game.

I've said for years that the in-game aspect of OOTP has a lot of room for improvement. It's okay as it is, but it still feels very much like you're reading a ticker that summarizes the events rather than being present at the events. I don't need to see rendered faces and bats tapping on the plate, but seeing a ball get caught by a highly pixelated outfielder near the wall and thrown home just in time to catch a fuzzy runner trying to score would be great.

Now, bear in mind that the question is whether either animation or sound adds to realism, not just entertainment. Highly pixelated and fuzzy figures chasing a small dot; is that realistic or entertaining? Would the sound of bat smacking ball add to realism or does realism come from something completely different in a game like this?

[darkcloud4579]

I think if there was a way to have realistic play-by-play, even that you could do yourself...that'd be the coolest enhancement for me, well beyond anything FaceGen even offers. To be able to bring these games "to life" would be the best thing in my mind..and that would surely do it, because while folks might not understand your passion for a team that you can't watch play, being able to let them HEAR a play-by-play of your team taking it all the way, would be huge.

But besides that, I was also wondering about what is the 'realism' of a juggernaut team? Despite having them throughout history, it seems people throughout the boards are pretty adamantly against people who take over teams that win all of the time. Now naturally it's unrealistic for someone to rack up a dozen world series titles in a row or even half that. But winning a string of division titles or a decade or so of playoff appearance isn't that far off -- especially in the increasing landscape of haves vs. have nots.

But I wonder what folks think of that? What's the appropriate role of the juggernaut in a universe?

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

I think if there was a way to have realistic play-by-play, even that you could do yourself...that'd be the coolest enhancement for me, well beyond anything FaceGen even offers. To be able to bring these games "to life" would be the best thing in my mind..and that would surely do it, because while folks might not understand your passion for a team that you can't watch play, being able to let them HEAR a play-by-play of your team taking it all the way, would be huge.

Some years back, there was a lot of talk about using voice synthesizers to create announcers for the game. I remember even going and trying out a few free ones. The technology is there to do it, but I don't know about the expense if you want it to sound really good. I'd surely love to hear the (mis)pronunciations of player names!

But besides that, I was also wondering about what is the 'realism' of a juggernaut team? Despite having them throughout history, it seems people throughout the boards are pretty adamantly against people who take over teams that win all of the time. Now naturally it's unrealistic for someone to rack up a dozen world series titles in a row or even half that. But winning a string of division titles or a decade or so of playoff appearance isn't that far off -- especially in the increasing landscape of haves vs. have nots.

But I wonder what folks think of that? What's the appropriate role of the juggernaut in a universe?

I think the issue for me is that it's kind of boring once you get to the juggernaut level. If there's one thing about OOTP that has always felt a little off to me it's this: once you get to the point where you are winning 110+ games a season, it's generally not difficult (most of the time) to maintain that in perpetuity unless you really scale back what kind of information you have access to (e.g. playing with no ratings or something). But I think most people (myself included) like to pick one team and stay with it rather than work as a GM-for-hire. Otherwise one could just take over a new team and try to build that one up to the same level.

I can never seem to identify exactly what it is that makes this the case, but in my experience, it has pretty consistently been that way.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Some years back, there was a lot of talk about using voice synthesizers to create announcers for the game. I remember even going and trying out a few free ones. The technology is there to do it, but I don't know about the expense if you want it to sound really good. I'd surely love to hear the (mis)pronunciations of player names!

Take the PbP log, dump it into a .doc file(requires a little editing), turn it into a .pdf (use the free tool here! ), then choose the "Read Aloud" option in Adobe Acrobat Reader.

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I think the issue for me is that it's kind of boring once you get to the juggernaut level. If there's one thing about OOTP that has always felt a little off to me it's this: once you get to the point where you are winning 110+ games a season, it's generally not difficult (most of the time) to maintain that in perpetuity unless you really scale back what kind of information you have access to (e.g. playing with no ratings or something). But I think most people (myself included) like to pick one team and stay with it rather than work as a GM-for-hire. Otherwise one could just take over a new team and try to build that one up to the same level.

I can never seem to identify exactly what it is that makes this the case, but in my experience, it has pretty consistently been that way.

Almost all of my dynasties are of the GM-for-hire variety for this very reason and I'd love to be able to run a ballclub without using a salary cap to win or whatever, but I think the problem is..the AI doesn't RESPOND to a dominant team.

In real life, when the Yankees spend recklessly on free agents and pull big trades, the Red Sox, Cubs and Angels will play along and try to compete. It might fail for all of them, but....eventually, it's having this one juggernaut who is better than everyone at everything and who fail to compete that makes it difficult.

I do like that the playoffs are no longer a cinch anymore, that they're as random as real life and that's helped a ton. But the whole "team in the playoffs" every year thing does smack of silliness and yet, it's par for the course in real life these days, especially with the added round of playoffs and stuff.

So the solution might just be to create several rivals when one's team has assumed the juggernaut role to keep you on your toes, but even then...it's only sucky because then you already know what moves they've made and in theory, how to respond...though I just think if I don't bother to respond that it'll make it fair or whatever.

[darkcloud4579]

Here's another question:

Do you play your dynasty, see another team that has players that interest you or just a roster that you'd love to tinker with and try to see if you can win with them and then leave where you are to do that? Or do you just stick it out with one team and get super immersed with them?

Have you ever tried running a solo dynasty using two different teams?

I've never done that, at least, not unless you count the way that I just intervene on the behalf of PC teams to try to make the game harder.

I've never had to say, decide between two clubs that I'm running concurrently and see them both excel and see where it goes.

But...I think that might be an interesting tactic towards challenging one's self too.

Also, how do you all feel about parity? Do you like it in your leagues or not? I don't generally prefer it, but..I know a lot of people do. Parity can be best induced in this game using a salary cap and restricting the amount of available cash teams have in their payrolls for new players.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by darkcloud4579

Here's another question:

Do you play your dynasty, see another team that has players that interest you or just a roster that you'd love to tinker with and try to see if you can win with them and then leave where you are to do that? Or do you just stick it out with one team and get super immersed with them?

Have you ever tried running a solo dynasty using two different teams?

If I'm running more than one team, there is always a primary and a secondary team for me. I have my main team that I stick with through the years, and I have another team that I don't actually manage, which I try to build up into a dominant team. In my current league, I had my team win 120 games one year, and I managed to get the main competitor team to win 116 in the same year. Without fail, though, as soon as I stop putting effort into the other team, they decline sharply. Three seasons later, that same team lost 100 games and was stuck with lots of big contracts for fallen old stars.

The AI does not plan for the future at all. It is always looking for what can make it better at the moment and will always sacrifice the future to do so, simply because it isn't looking.

Also, how do you all feel about parity? Do you like it in your leagues or not? I don't generally prefer it, but..I know a lot of people do. Parity can be best induced in this game using a salary cap and restricting the amount of available cash teams have in their payrolls for new players.

I don't really go for parity. I actually like having Yankee-like teams in my leagues, and I like having cellar dwellers who make occasional surprising jumps to the top. It seems to me that the shortcomings of the AI create a certain level of parity anyway. Teams with very small amounts of income occasionally build dynasties simply because the teams with a lot of money manage to get stuck with the big contracts of their old players and other such issues.

I saw the AI give a 3-year contract for $10 million a year to a 41-year-old player in obvious decline the other day. That would never happen in real life. And if it did for some reason, it would be a rarity. It's not really in the game. Long-term contracts for declining veterans continues to be one of the main things holding AI teams back. Sorry that's a bit of an aside.

Back to parity... I think there is something to be said for having a sense that all teams have an equal chance at winning, but I prefer it to be more like real life. I've even done things like reduce the percentage of the gate that the away team takes.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by ctorg

Back to parity... I think there is something to be said for having a sense that all teams have an equal chance at winning, but I prefer it to be more like real life.

I said earlier that I did not want to be the juggernaut, that I would purposely but not excessively scale back on my efforts if I've had too many dominant seasons in a row. On the other hand, if there is an AI juggernaut (there are some occasionally, no?), that can stoke my competitive fires for sure. But too much of this juggernaut business can be boring and not realistic IMO.

There's some humorous talk today on the Talk Sports forum about the Red Sox having replaced the Yankees as baseball juggernauts now. Pretty funny in that one team has one only one championship in 89 years, and that three years ago and having spent last year out of the playoffs, and the other having been bounced out in the first round three years in a row.

I would not characterize either as juggernauts. I would characterize both as consistently competitive, and that is the most realistic situation to have. I value parity in this game, but I would not want to see randomness. I get satisfaction from viewing the same teams at or near the top for a few seasons in a row at least, with some surprise teams mixed in for excitement. I guess I just want the game to replicate what I see in MLB in this aspect.

[BWolf555]

I'm not sure if anyone else has tried variations of this formula, but I have had good results that are cyclical, having periods of domination and periods where I am at the top of the draft trying to build a team for tomorrow.

First and foremost, I limit myself to player acquisition through either the draft or free agency. I have found that trades are often "off", no matter how I manipulate the difficulty or preference of the trading AI. If I looked hard enough, I could always find a completely unfair deal for myself through trades. The players you draft are obviously fairly acquired, and I find that, if anything, I have to overpay for free-agents.

Secondly, I try to create a financially level playing field by adjusting all markets to average, setting a standard media contract, and setting a salary cap that is high, but just low enough to prevent a Yankees like spree on the free agent market. This does NOT mean teams can't dominate. In my leagues, teams always do for 5 to 7 years at a time.

Thirdly, I turn off coaches, and sometimes scouts, because I have found I consistently get the best of both for below what I would actually pay for them.

Finally, while I leave on the star system to help me quickly keep track of my players, I play on a limited rating scale of 1-10 or 1-8.

These settings have worked fairly well for giving me a challenge in my solo league play.

[darkcloud4579]

Originally Posted by BWolf555

I'm not sure if anyone else has tried variations of this formula, but I have had good results that are cyclical, having periods of domination and periods where I am at the top of the draft trying to build a team for tomorrow.

First and foremost, I limit myself to player acquisition through either the draft or free agency. I have found that trades are often "off", no matter how I manipulate the difficulty or preference of the trading AI. If I looked hard enough, I could always find a completely unfair deal for myself through trades. The players you draft are obviously fairly acquired, and I find that, if anything, I have to overpay for free-agents.

Secondly, I try to create a financially level playing field by adjusting all markets to average, setting a standard media contract, and setting a salary cap that is high, but just low enough to prevent a Yankees like spree on the free agent market. This does NOT mean teams can't dominate. In my leagues, teams always do for 5 to 7 years at a time.

Thirdly, I turn off coaches, and sometimes scouts, because I have found I consistently get the best of both for below what I would actually pay for them.

Finally, while I leave on the star system to help me quickly keep track of my players, I play on a limited rating scale of 1-10 or 1-8.

These settings have worked fairly well for giving me a challenge in my solo league play.

My current dynasty is the first one where I've sufficiently rigged the game to be "fairer" or even "more difficult" for me and it's taken me about a decade in game years to get it really to that point.

I'd never been in a situation before where I was running a juggernaut (or wanna-be juggernaut) that's spending to win within a certain window, but whose farm system is basically bare and who after the current crop of stars get old or stop producing, they're going to have to blow the team up, suck for a few years and start over again.

I'm using 2-8 ratings and I'm beginning to employ some sort of fiscal restraint measures to try to equalize spending among the teams to some degree, without it getting ridiculous or just "too" focused on parity.

It should be interesting to see where it ends up, but...I do like the challenge more now than ever before, as it feels a lot more "real" to me than it ever has in the past.

[ctorg]

I love trading too much to give it up. I just want the AI to be better about it. I don't mean by adjusting the difficulty level to make it harder, but by getting the AI to make moves that are actually beneficial to the teams it controls. Not just with me, but with other teams. I saw a team that shelled out big contracts for two all-star first basemen in a recent free agency period, despite already having a third of the same caliber. And they'd been in last place the season before and had plenty of holes. So I force-traded the 1B to fill one of their holes. I wish I didn't have to do things like that. I wish that when the team is set to be in a rebuilding phase, it would actually rebuild and not continue to sign overpriced veterans to long-term deals.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by ctorg

I love trading too much to give it up. I just want the AI to be better about it. I don't mean by adjusting the difficulty level to make it harder, but by getting the AI to make moves that are actually beneficial to the teams it controls. Not just with me, but with other teams. I saw a team that shelled out big contracts for two all-star first basemen in a recent free agency period, despite already having a third of the same caliber. And they'd been in last place the season before and had plenty of holes. So I force-traded the 1B to fill one of their holes. I wish I didn't have to do things like that. I wish that when the team is set to be in a rebuilding phase, it would actually rebuild and not continue to sign overpriced veterans to long-term deals.

Well, they say that all of this is a lot better than it used to be, and continues to improve.

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Well, they say that all of this is a lot better than it used to be, and continues to improve.

It definitely is, and it definitely does.