Crazy Bad Performances

[HRBaker]

Originally Posted by Hawkwing7423

I complained about how bad Mike Trout was, months ago, and he also downgraded from a 100 live to a 98 live.

Yet as of now, he is outperforming Babe Ruth and Ken Griffey, Jr.

Trout - 98 rating / CON 64 / POW 121 / EYE 104 / .,246 / 30 HR 2nd in league

Ruth - 100 rating / CON 86 / POW 156 / EYE 152 / last 2 seasons batted .197 and .164

Griffey Jr - 101 rating / CON 119 / POW 152 / EYE 133 / HR per 162 is 8 and BA is .218

How does the above make any sense? If there's a hidden stat where players have a "good" or "bad" year, it would sure be nice if this was exposed to the manager.

In low diamond, my Roy Halladay is the worst of 18, my Chris Sale is the worst of 12, and my Mike Trout is having a career year. My Toad Ramsey is having his best year for me of 6 years.

I'm a programmer, I hate guesswork. It seems like you have to see who's doing well on Mondays, and if Sale and Halladay are stinking it up again, you have to try some other 100 in their spot. But that reserve 100 may be just as bad, or better, for no apparent reason. It's very frustrating.

It also seems like new players do very badly, for no reason, if you acquire them that season. I mean, KG Jr 8 HR per 162? If they get a large penalty as newly acquired players, why isn't that transparent?

Maybe others enjoy all this guesswork...

I can't say I blame you for your frustration. Back in the early versions of PT there was some variation - as you would expect and want - but the current variations just seem to be all over the board... FAR MORE than the variations I get in the classic game, and I have no idea why.

Your last point gripes me too... get a new player and he stinks up the dugout; sometimes for a few game months, sometimes the entire season. Again, no rhyme or reason why.

I hate to admit it but I'm really unhappy about PT right now. I moved back to the classic game and I'm having a ball.

[Big Poppy]

Just wait until OOTP builds a more advanced AI engine. Hopefully the difference between Google Earth 15 years ago, and now.

[usa_hank]

Guess which Sheff is mine? Yep, -0.7 WAR Sheff. The very bottom. I'm telling you, there either has to be some hidden rating that affects their performance, or I just have horrible luck. As the repeatedly bad performances build up, I can't help but think it's a hidden attribute. Or it's my "strategy" which I doubt would put all of my players into the bottom 3rd in performance.

My Yount is in the bottom 25% in pretty much all categories of the 21 Younts in my league. My Halladay is in the 4th worst Halladay of 24 teams who are using him as a regular starter. My Carew, who only plays in about half my games, has the 2nd worst WAR and BABIP of about 26 "ACTIVE" Carews in my league. My Honus Wagner is in the bottom third of Wagers. I've even given up and brought in Luke Appling because, eff it, why bother playing players who aren't performing? The only thing keeping me from being the 2003 Tigers in the league is that I'm finally getting good performances out of Sale and Whitey this season. And to put some perspective to this, I'm in the easiest division in the league in terms of opposing team win % and RDIFF.

I think I might sell off every good player on my team at this point and just open packs for a day, at least I'll get some enjoyment out of it.

[zevus]

Originally Posted by hibees70

Big Poppy talks about “std.deviation in financial markets”.
I know nothing about that but if you had RNG like this in an rpg there would be outrage.
Still love the base game but they’ll get no more money from me.

indeed

I'm still doing some weekly drafts but losing interest in those, too.

I realize that this is the epitome of a "pay to win" game, but I was thinking that some bit of "skill" might be involved. I've spent a couple months trying to discover some hidden truths but have come up empty, alas!

I'm inclined to believe at this point that each card has some hidden value that is not visible to the player & an aggregation of these (like sum of all your "played" cards in a game) is how the winner & scores are determined. Only then does it utilize these ratings that we *can* see to generate the stats.

It fits in well with LeeD's theory ... just that what cards are "second-rate" is determined by some hidden value, and being "Massively Skilled" at handpicking your cards based on eras and their displayed stats, well ... not gonna do you a whole lot of good, because that newly introduced 101 card is *supposed* to be better than your 100 card so it comes with the higher internal value that determines actual winner and score margins, even if over some billion game sample size it generates lesser stats than the 100 card. It improves all the other cards you're using because it generates more wins and better run differentials for you!

[usa_hank]

Why can't the devs respond to threads like this? I don't understand. Stating there's a hidden attribute or that the aggregate of all players on your team affects individual performance is not exposing some secret sauce that can show other people how to make this game. It's disappointing to have so many people complaining about this and zero response from the devs.

Maybe it's a good time for us all to update our reviews on Steam. Or better yet, time for some competition...this has become like Madden. Why make something better if there's nothing else close? Just keep the same formula and rake in oodles of cash from the robots who buy it every single year.

Originally Posted by zevus

indeed

I'm still doing some weekly drafts but losing interest in those, too.

I realize that this is the epitome of a "pay to win" game, but I was thinking that some bit of "skill" might be involved. I've spent a couple months trying to discover some hidden truths but have come up empty, alas!

I'm inclined to believe at this point that each card has some hidden value that is not visible to the player & an aggregation of these (like sum of all your "played" cards in a game) is how the winner & scores are determined. Only then does it utilize these ratings that we *can* see to generate the stats.

It fits in well with LeeD's theory ... just that what cards are "second-rate" is determined by some hidden value, and being "Massively Skilled" at handpicking your cards based on eras and their displayed stats, well ... not gonna do you a whole lot of good, because that newly introduced 101 card is *supposed* to be better than your 100 card so it comes with the higher internal value that determines actual winner and score margins, even if over some billion game sample size it generates lesser stats than the 100 card. It improves all the other cards you're using because it generates more wins and better run differentials for you!

[rburgh]

Frequently hit below the Mendoza line. OPS is a much better performance indicator for all hitters in all environments.

This week is a 70's theme week. You know, back when they called a strike a strike and some balls strikes too. Also this was the pre-roids era so the locker room didn't look like a bunch of contestants for Mr. America. Batting is going to be suppressed this week.

[usa_hank]

Again, we're comparing apples to apples. It's not like we're comparing two different players in two different leagues. These are the same players in the same leagues, who are facing the same competition in the same normalized environments. This is as apples to apples as you can get.

I don't think anyone is saying "oh my guy is hitting .213 so I hate him for it!" More like "my guy is hitting .213 and everyone elses is at .265." Their same player has the same eye rating :P

Originally Posted by rburgh

Frequently hit below the Mendoza line. OPS is a much better performance indicator for all hitters in all environments.

This week is a 70's theme week. You know, back when they called a strike a strike and some balls strikes too. Also this was the pre-roids era so the locker room didn't look like a bunch of contestants for Mr. America. Batting is going to be suppressed this week.

[dishnet34]

There is not a hidden attribute or any of that crap. Y'all need to learn what variance is in statistical probability. You're just getting crap luck, that's it, that's all. There's not "hidden attributes" or anything nefarious like that.

[usa_hank]

See, there are two types of distribution in which you can generate random numbers: straight, and Gaussian (aka "normal"). You need to learn what generating numbers in Gaussian distribution does, how you can adjust the standard deviation of said number generation, and why it's important and more realistic for a stats-based game.

Just sayin. If there's not a hidden attribute, then they need to fix their engine, because it's far too random to be relevant.

Originally Posted by dishnet34

There is not a hidden attribute or any of that crap. Y'all need to learn what variance is in statistical probability. You're just getting crap luck, that's it, that's all. There's not "hidden attributes" or anything nefarious like that.