What is a sim? What do you expect?

[too_on_too_out]

This isn't limited to OOTP of course, though it would include it.

But I was wondering if a 'sim' is just about tweaking or massaging results until they 'look right'. Not that that is any small thing, but is that basically what 'simming' is about?

The question goes two ways - from the perspective of the developers and that of the user. Iow, do you evaluate a sim's effectiveness or legitimacy (referred to by many as 'immersion') by the degree it serves results which you expect?

My guess is that much of what passes for 'simulation' is really just tweaking formulas until things look about right most of the time. Not just here but elsewhere, anywhere. It's not a complaint, certainly not a poke at OOTP. (AI is another term, similar to 'sim' that is hollow, and used as if it is meaningful.)

[too_on_too_out]

This thread fell FLAT! FLAT I TELL YOU!!!

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

This isn't limited to OOTP of course, though it would include it.

But I was wondering if a 'sim' is just about tweaking or massaging results until they 'look right'. Not that that is any small thing, but is that basically what 'simming' is about?

The question goes two ways - from the perspective of the developers and that of the user. Iow, do you evaluate a sim's effectiveness or legitimacy (referred to by many as 'immersion') by the degree it serves results which you expect?

My guess is that much of what passes for 'simulation' is really just tweaking formulas until things look about right most of the time. Not just here but elsewhere, anywhere. It's not a complaint, certainly not a poke at OOTP. (AI is another term, similar to 'sim' that is hollow, and used as if it is meaningful.)

Its a computer baseball game, just like all the others...the results should mimic reality to a large extent, but also allow enough variation to make it somewhat "different" than reality. In the big picture, all of these sim games are entertainment products, an enjoyable alternative to tv or books or whatever else

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

This thread fell FLAT! FLAT I TELL YOU!!!

George Costanza????

[Bobbyraz49]

Flat no longer ! Haaaa

This is a great sim and glad I found it. It was a longtime ago that I played Madden football on the PC. Wanted something realistic and not just something that typed out game play. This what I was hoping for.
Now.... for a football sim similar to OOTPBB21.

[pgjocki]

I can tell you that at my work we have lengthy and sometimes heated debates over the definition and use of a simulation and an emulation.

Is the software physics based or purely math based. Are the underlying algorithms deterministic or stochastic? How many cycles does your software process before producing and displaying a result?

I often wonder if OOTP is truly stochastic in that it allows the user to change the variables when both hitting and pitching.

But it is also based on what the user expects and their understanding of statistical analysis and probability distributions.

Me, I just like baseball and want to watch the Cubs lose.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Mariner and Giants Fan]

This sim is different than other baseball sims such as Diamond Mind Baseball or Action Sports Baseball. I think OOTP is more of a "what-If" scenario type of sim whereas the others I mentioned try to mimic actual results of seasons past, for the most part. OOTP has many more facets to it than most simulations that I am familiar with.

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Mariner and Giants Fan

I think OOTP is more of a "what-If" scenario type of sim whereas the others I mentioned try to mimic actual results of seasons past, for the most part. OOTP has many more facets to it than most simulations that I am familiar with.

Exactly. And along with the "what if" aspect OOTP does an excellent job of generating plausible results given the parameters set by the user. I mix historical players with the current. No, they don't reproduce their historical numbers stat for stat but their output is generally plausible if they were playing in the current day with the league modifiers I use. This is what OOTP excels at, IMO.

[jimmysthebestcop]

I think OOTP is sort of unique as a video game because not only does it have to simulate the actual game of baseball but it is also trying to simulate the baseball world or the management of this world.

And I think OOTP does a tremendous job at the day to day and playing out of games from the manager sim level. As well as trying to get realistic results from the baseball engine. Its not perfect but no computer based model on something as complex will be. It does a better job then any baseball game ever and even better then a mess of other sports games.

The area I think OOTP fails at is the simulation of the management part of the MLB. Specifically the GM spot. The management sim side of OOTP is very stale, boring, and lifeless. In fact not much has changed in the GM world in 5 versions.

I think a ton of other games do that type of management sim much much better. You have games from car factories to restaurants to cities to whatever you can think of. Most of those worlds are dynamic. So you can keep replaying it even with the same characters and it feels completely fresh each time.

OOTP doesn't feel fresh if you are replaying from opening day in the same version and barely fresh from version to version. I literally feel like I am playing exactly the same GM game from 18 to 21. Coaching has gotten better. 3D better. Our gm tools might have gotten better. But the world hasn't.

Finances need a complete overhaul. Posting system is completely incorrect. Personality and traits are stale, static and boring. We need dynamic traits and the human needs to be a factor in some of these. The GM aka human needs to feel a part of the universe. The coaching system is borderline broken from the GM perspective. Then their are owner goals that make no sense. Team chemistry that has been the same for multiple versions. Very few storylines most with out a series of chained events and there has been no new stories added.

Compare that to a game like Motorsport Manager where the human interacts with the characters and has impact on permanent and temp traits/personality. And the team personnel are unique enough to feel completely different from one another. The game also has interaction between the human and the owner/league offices so you can vote on league mechanics. OOTP in commish mode you can just change anything you want. But there are no game mechanics to get anything done.
Since there are no mechanics to initiate change how could of a baseball management sim can it really be?

I feel most of these unique GM types mechanics were added to the game years ago and have been completely forgotten, never updated and no new fresh takes have been done with them.

Managing/coaching while playing the games out OOTP does well. Anything to do with crunching numbers to get realistic results or fictional results (if wanted) OOTP does well. Providing a fun, entertaining, fresh, dynamic world for the GM it is well below average.

[One Great Matrix]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

This isn't limited to OOTP of course, though it would include it.

But I was wondering if a 'sim' is just about tweaking or massaging results until they 'look right'. Not that that is any small thing, but is that basically what 'simming' is about?

The question goes two ways - from the perspective of the developers and that of the user. Iow, do you evaluate a sim's effectiveness or legitimacy (referred to by many as 'immersion') by the degree it serves results which you expect?

My guess is that much of what passes for 'simulation' is really just tweaking formulas until things look about right most of the time. Not just here but elsewhere, anywhere. It's not a complaint, certainly not a poke at OOTP. (AI is another term, similar to 'sim' that is hollow, and used as if it is meaningful.)

It COULD be hollow if you don't give it some meaning...

Outside of that, you enjoy the game, have an idea of what you are doing, rather, maybe, why you are doing what you are doing, things click, you enjoy the game.

Before I begin a simulation, I have some idea of what I'd like to do. It isn't possible without the program to play out certain concepts you've developed having participating in baseball first- or second-hand (or both). An interest in statistics is pretty important in my case...

I might get an idea & I can simulate things that have not, possibly could not happen in real life. I can analyze the outcomes of things and enjoy the virtual baseball.

Hey, I have one guy in our crew that isn't interested in watching baseball at all, I am the antithesis of him, I enjoy the game very much & OOTP is a way of using my imagination to create something like a baseball world/story/"universe".

So there is far more meaning when some of the meaning comes from within usually and you use the program as a sort of assistant in realizing some imaginative idea that comes to you...

AI is a separate sort of project for programmers I suppose to hopefully make the program more user-friendly in some cases plus some people just can't help but get fascinated with the whole idea of AI, so it is sort of an experiment and sort of a tool .

It is what it is, all I know is that the sims do have a nice feel to them as long as you are enjoying them. Like a piano has a nice feel to it as long as you're playing something you like.

I can imagine them feeling somewhat hollow if you just started one up for no real reason & didn't know the program very well & let the games play out & didn't know what direction you wanted to go in with the league(s).

But it can be just the opposite if you work well with the program, and the program works well with you. It goes from hollow to an interactive experience.

I was even enjoying something rather hollow today...as the program still offers statistics, different possibilities in baseball, replays, players, team management, all without any real direction.

[too_on_too_out]

Some interesting responses...

I think people tend to view and treat 'sims' like a magic box - you put stuff in, something happens, and you get a more or less anticipated result. You don't know how or why. Like a magic box. Someone used the word 'mimic' and I think that is a good descriptor. The results feel right, they are within the realm of acceptable, though we have no idea why nor even if they should based on the data we provided, since we (the players) don't at all understand how the variables involved actually interact. Iow, any evaluation of a sim is strictly results-based, rather than pure best of class mathematical modeling/theorizing.

And I asked because as I mentioned in the OP, the gaming industry has been using terms like 'simulation' and 'AI'. What's more, and as always, the adjoined consumer subculture is mimicing and teaching each other to use these terms, as though everyone knows what they are talking about. (I think 'simulation' is another word for 'game', and 'AI' is another word for programming. There really are no differences, outside of a marketing agenda. But I think there is more involved than that. For example, why is a math-based term used in place of game?)

It's a bit like baseball itself, which has long been called 'men playing a boy's game'. Is it just the fact that serious adults are involved that the market realizes the advantage in using adult and serious sounding terms like 'sim' and 'AI' when describing what is after all a game? Technically sophisticated of course, but still ultimately a game.

On a broader scope - that reality may be mimicked using mathematical predictions is very much in the broader culture - the culture of materialist ideology which claims all we need to know is the correct formula of a thing or phenomenon to understand its substance. And if it doesn't have a formula (or we don't know it, which tends to be interpreted the same in public discourse) it is without real value or substance.

This may sound a bit off track but here is my point (and I'll use a different sim to explain, so as to not draw the ire of OOTPers): since the name John Henry is linked as a fan to OOTP I'll go with him. Henry has a game called 'iracing', which is billed as an online racing sim. Much hoopla and debate goes into iracing's 'tire model', with which iracing markets itself by claiming it has the most realistic tire model of all racing games, and that it is building it using very sophisticated mathematical models which model the individual inputs involved with tire performance on a track surface. Anyway! Regardless of how all that grabs you (and based on youtube videos it looks quite fun) you will also find hilarious videos of professional race drivers commenting (obviously beyond contractual obligation) frankly about how unrealistic and awful the tires and traction performs compared to the real thing.

Ok. So here is my point: what if the mathematical modeling is correct? What if it is as precise as leading human expertise provides? It makes no difference, because the expectation is that correct mathematical modeling SHOULD lead to an expected, life-like result. If it does not, then the math is wrong. I posit that the math may be pristine, it may be spotless. It is the ideology that is wrong. The ideology of materialism predicts that everything is reduceable to mathematically predictable equation. What if it isn't?

Of course, the upholding of the ideology is approached from other directions, that is - if the sim'd results are not as expected then the math may be pristine but incomplete, and so that is why, in this example, the tire model of iracing is, according to pro drivers, a bit 'off'. Iow, the ideology claims it can only provide realistic modeling after achieving a substantially omniscient view of the variables and weights involved. Which is of course ridiculous.

So, either way, the question comes back again to what exactly is going on when people start using terms like 'simulation' in place of 'game'. (and we shouldn't claim it is all just marketing. Marketing doesn't wholly invent. Successful marketing hits a nerve then exploits it, it doesn't wholly invent the nerve itself, so to speak. Simulation is used in much wider and narrower circles than gaming.)

I think simulation is used as an ideological indoctrinating by the culture effected based on what I outlined above - the accepted expectation that reality adhere to mathematical formula, is reduceable to mathematical formula. Which is, as the 'magic box' interpretation of simulation suggests, is a circular argument simply because we don't know if the math is right unless it seems to mimic reality.

[too_on_too_out]

@One Great Matrix

If I get your point, absolutely what you put in will determine what you get out, and that both revolve around the depth in the story played out in data. This is why I think the direction for OOTP to take is increased sandbox potential because it allows players to invest more into developing output that will be meaningful, in a story-telling sense. But this raises more questions - a player has the option of shaping data to tell a story but also to shape the story to fit the data. It seems that virtually all prefer the former - shaping the data to fit the story. But why is the other option not as popular? It would require as much, if not more, creativity. And it would also involve the element of unpredictability. So why do virtually all players complain when their 'sim' spits out unexpected and unrealistic results? Iow, why do most complain when the data doesn't fit their story, rather than use it as an opportunity to creatively shape a wholly unexpected storyline?

Yes, obviously if one is, for example, recreating the 1998 MLB season then we expect the results to be very close to the actual stats, since that is the whole point.

I'll give an example: in a recent fictional league, with the team I was GM for heading for a potential playoff position while tied with another team, I tried to extend contracts of my entire staff. They all declined. So, whether or not we made the playoffs or won the series, one thing they all knew is that they wouldn't be back next year. Now, my first reaction was - 'pshaw...!' However, based on what you are stating, I could have just as easily incorporated that wholly unexpected development into an entertaining story. And I agree. But I wonder if not most players would not have had the same initial reaction I did, and think something 'isn't right'.

Outside of a bit of code that actually decides what I described to happen (an entireStaffQuits routine that uses some formula for triggering it in a game) a math model that allows that to happen could be just as worthy as one that has the staff responding realistically within the same scenario. But that is getting a bit beyond my knowledge of how these things are modeled and designed. Maybe there is a routine that triggers specific things like staff suddenly quitting. My point has more to do with expectations and alternatives within a storytelling sandbox.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by pgjocki

Are the underlying algorithms deterministic or stochastic?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Nor sure how you are using the terms. There is no such thing as stochastic though (least of all OOTP or any other gaming software). If you are using it literally (or, if I am using it correctly) stochastic means random. A computer cannot create a random number since it must be programmed how to arrive at the number, which is paradoxical. The most sophisticated state of the art encryption software essentially reapplies deeper layers of sophistication and volume of cipher coding techniques.

[One Great Matrix]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

@One Great Matrix

If I get your point, absolutely what you put in will determine what you get out, and that both revolve around the depth in the story played out in data. This is why I think the direction for OOTP to take is increased sandbox potential because it allows players to invest more into developing output that will be meaningful, in a story-telling sense. But this raises more questions - a player has the option of shaping data to tell a story but also to shape the story to fit the data. It seems that virtually all prefer the former - shaping the data to fit the story. But why is the other option not as popular? It would require as much, if not more, creativity. And it would also involve the element of unpredictability. So why do virtually all players complain when their 'sim' spits out unexpected and unrealistic results? Iow, why do most complain when the data doesn't fit their story, rather than use it as an opportunity to creatively shape a wholly unexpected storyline?

Yes, obviously if one is, for example, recreating the 1998 MLB season then we expect the results to be very close to the actual stats, since that is the whole point.

I'll give an example: in a recent fictional league, with the team I was GM for heading for a potential playoff position while tied with another team, I tried to extend contracts of my entire staff. They all declined. So, whether or not we made the playoffs or won the series, one thing they all knew is that they wouldn't be back next year. Now, my first reaction was - 'pshaw...!' However, based on what you are stating, I could have just as easily incorporated that wholly unexpected development into an entertaining story. And I agree. But I wonder if not most players would not have had the same initial reaction I did, and think something 'isn't right'.

Outside of a bit of code that actually decides what I described to happen (an entireStaffQuits routine that uses some formula for triggering it in a game) a math model that allows that to happen could be just as worthy as one that has the staff responding realistically within the same scenario. But that is getting a bit beyond my knowledge of how these things are modeled and designed. Maybe there is a routine that triggers specific things like staff suddenly quitting. My point has more to do with expectations and alternatives within a storytelling sandbox.

Suggested Exercise:
Start a new league.
Don't manage or GM any of the teams.
Sim the games, start of the season to end of the playoffs.
Sift through the data and note 9 anomalies that if they would have happened with you as a GM with an interest in your team's success you may have got frustrated with and blamed the game. Keep these ever-present anomalies in mind when GMing for the wins.

As for the rest of the feedback, it was quite a bit but I rather enjoyed it...

And there are lots of ways to look at it. In fact, I'm not sure how I got to this user name. One Great Matrix. But it sounds like there are lots of ways to look at it.

As far as gameplay, even though some of my sims are very umm baseball involved, I haven't been so philosophical about it...just guessed I was enjoying the game because it did a good job for a $35 game at simulation. What does that word mean to me? It means...magical, in a sense. I mean...pretty much in a good way, Hey? And it means that I kept playing because it's got me believing that the outcomes are somewhat plausible. Why is somewhat plausible good enough? Well, for one, $35. And for two I consider myself something like somewhat plausible. Ha. And for three, I always had dreams of creating baseball simulation for when the real thing wasn't possible.

[garion333]

In my experience physics-based sim games are much harder to make and easier to break, so we all settle on the mathematic algorithm text based sims that allow for a facsimile of reality in which to play out our dreams even if they aren't "real".

[pgjocki]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

Nor sure how you are using the terms. There is no such thing as stochastic though (least of all OOTP or any other gaming software). If you are using it literally (or, if I am using it correctly) stochastic means random. A computer cannot create a random number since it must be programmed how to arrive at the number, which is paradoxical. The most sophisticated state of the art encryption software essentially reapplies deeper layers of sophistication and volume of cipher coding techniques.

I was applying that when the user selects either 1 or 2 as opposed to letting the AI just sim. The user is creating the random number but I don't know if the AI logic cares because it has already determined the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[ablobj]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

Some interesting responses...

I think people tend to view and treat 'sims' like a magic box - you put stuff in, something happens, and you get a more or less anticipated result. You don't know how or why. Like a magic box. Someone used the word 'mimic' and I think that is a good descriptor. The results feel right, they are within the realm of acceptable, though we have no idea why nor even if they should based on the data we provided, since we (the players) don't at all understand how the variables involved actually interact. Iow, any evaluation of a sim is strictly results-based, rather than pure best of class mathematical modeling/theorizing.

And I asked because as I mentioned in the OP, the gaming industry has been using terms like 'simulation' and 'AI'. What's more, and as always, the adjoined consumer subculture is mimicing and teaching each other to use these terms, as though everyone knows what they are talking about. (I think 'simulation' is another word for 'game', and 'AI' is another word for programming. There really are no differences, outside of a marketing agenda. But I think there is more involved than that. For example, why is a math-based term used in place of game?)

It's a bit like baseball itself, which has long been called 'men playing a boy's game'. Is it just the fact that serious adults are involved that the market realizes the advantage in using adult and serious sounding terms like 'sim' and 'AI' when describing what is after all a game? Technically sophisticated of course, but still ultimately a game.

On a broader scope - that reality may be mimicked using mathematical predictions is very much in the broader culture - the culture of materialist ideology which claims all we need to know is the correct formula of a thing or phenomenon to understand its substance. And if it doesn't have a formula (or we don't know it, which tends to be interpreted the same in public discourse) it is without real value or substance.

This may sound a bit off track but here is my point (and I'll use a different sim to explain, so as to not draw the ire of OOTPers): since the name John Henry is linked as a fan to OOTP I'll go with him. Henry has a game called 'iracing', which is billed as an online racing sim. Much hoopla and debate goes into iracing's 'tire model', with which iracing markets itself by claiming it has the most realistic tire model of all racing games, and that it is building it using very sophisticated mathematical models which model the individual inputs involved with tire performance on a track surface. Anyway! Regardless of how all that grabs you (and based on youtube videos it looks quite fun) you will also find hilarious videos of professional race drivers commenting (obviously beyond contractual obligation) frankly about how unrealistic and awful the tires and traction performs compared to the real thing.

Ok. So here is my point: what if the mathematical modeling is correct? What if it is as precise as leading human expertise provides? It makes no difference, because the expectation is that correct mathematical modeling SHOULD lead to an expected, life-like result. If it does not, then the math is wrong. I posit that the math may be pristine, it may be spotless. It is the ideology that is wrong. The ideology of materialism predicts that everything is reduceable to mathematically predictable equation. What if it isn't?

Of course, the upholding of the ideology is approached from other directions, that is - if the sim'd results are not as expected then the math may be pristine but incomplete, and so that is why, in this example, the tire model of iracing is, according to pro drivers, a bit 'off'. Iow, the ideology claims it can only provide realistic modeling after achieving a substantially omniscient view of the variables and weights involved. Which is of course ridiculous.

So, either way, the question comes back again to what exactly is going on when people start using terms like 'simulation' in place of 'game'. (and we shouldn't claim it is all just marketing. Marketing doesn't wholly invent. Successful marketing hits a nerve then exploits it, it doesn't wholly invent the nerve itself, so to speak. Simulation is used in much wider and narrower circles than gaming.)

I think simulation is used as an ideological indoctrinating by the culture effected based on what I outlined above - the accepted expectation that reality adhere to mathematical formula, is reduceable to mathematical formula. Which is, as the 'magic box' interpretation of simulation suggests, is a circular argument simply because we don't know if the math is right unless it seems to mimic reality.

Sports games usually fall into one of two categories...arcade or sim. Arcade-style games are the ones in which you use the controller to, well, control the players. Sim games are the ones in which you manage the team, rather than physically control the individual players. This nomenclature has been around for a long, long, time. We're not being ideologically indoctrinated by circular argumentation...we're just having fun playing "what if?" baseball.

[itsmb8]

Originally Posted by ablobj

Sports games usually fall into one of two categories...arcade or sim. Arcade-style games are the ones in which you use the controller to, well, control the players. Sim games are the ones in which you manage the team, rather than physically control the individual players. This nomenclature has been around for a long, long, time. We're not being ideologically indoctrinated by circular argumentation...we're just having fun playing "what if?" baseball.

Now, what about the games that are played out on the field in real-time, but you aren't controlling the players? For example, NFL Head Coach, Coach Mode in NCAA Football, Manager Mode in MLB: The Show... Or, what about career modes where you aren't only controlling your own player?

Just trying to start a debate because there's a TON of gray area and I feel like a lot of people have widely varying opinions.

[too_on_too_out]

Originally Posted by One Great Matrix

Suggested Exercise:
Start a new league.
Don't manage or GM any of the teams.
Sim the games, start of the season to end of the playoffs.
Sift through the data and note 9 anomalies that if they would have happened with you as a GM with an interest in your team's success you may have got frustrated with and blamed the game. Keep these ever-present anomalies in mind when GMing for the wins.

As for the rest of the feedback, it was quite a bit but I rather enjoyed it...

And there are lots of ways to look at it. In fact, I'm not sure how I got to this user name. One Great Matrix. But it sounds like there are lots of ways to look at it.

As far as gameplay, even though some of my sims are very umm baseball involved, I haven't been so philosophical about it...just guessed I was enjoying the game because it did a good job for a $35 game at simulation. What does that word mean to me? It means...magical, in a sense. I mean...pretty much in a good way, Hey? And it means that I kept playing because it's got me believing that the outcomes are somewhat plausible. Why is somewhat plausible good enough? Well, for one, $35. And for two I consider myself something like somewhat plausible. Ha. And for three, I always had dreams of creating baseball simulation for when the real thing wasn't possible.

np. Had fun writing it.

[One Great Matrix]

Originally Posted by too_on_too_out

This isn't limited to OOTP of course, though it would include it.

But I was wondering if a 'sim' is just about tweaking or massaging results until they 'look right'. Not that that is any small thing, but is that basically what 'simming' is about?

The question goes two ways - from the perspective of the developers and that of the user. Iow, do you evaluate a sim's effectiveness or legitimacy (referred to by many as 'immersion') by the degree it serves results which you expect?

My guess is that much of what passes for 'simulation' is really just tweaking formulas until things look about right most of the time. Not just here but elsewhere, anywhere. It's not a complaint, certainly not a poke at OOTP. (AI is another term, similar to 'sim' that is hollow, and used as if it is meaningful.)

At some point, I bought AI as a meaningful term...then I re-visited an old Madden game before the term was popular...and they have "Ask Madden" when you pick a play. That's just to address the last part of your post. ("Ask Madden" is a form of AI, and so too, maybe is a calculator, computer used correctly, or in a certain way...inherently.) So it's kind of a messy or PC term.

As for the rest of the question, if you ask me what a simulation is, I would just go to the Webster's dictionary because it is SO complicated to try to answer that question. Almost like...What is life? I explained what a dictionary is one time. I probably can't re-create the words right now....yeah, so I won't. Maybe later.