Challenge Mode should be harder

[Matt Arnold]

It's a new mode, so we'll keep adjusting things over time. Some of the obvious loopholes (reloading games/seasons) we'll get around to closing as soon as we can. Other issues, like making sure trading is balanced, we'll have to evaluate whether we feel it's worth it to add in new rules for that, or whether the regular changes to ensure trading is balanced are enough.

[Orcin]

And I forgot to mention how easy it is to exploit the waiver wire in a modern game. The AI will offer enough players to make a lousy team competitive in the first year, and at minimum salary most of the time. I use reserve rosters with a large or no limit in historical leagues just to help the AI hold on to its players. They get ugly with so many unnecessary players hanging on a minimum salaries because the AI refuses to cut anyone and they won't retire. But it is still better than be forced to ignore free talent on the waiver wire.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Dude, like what did you do to win 121 games? That's awesome!!!

Apparently, it's not that hard. This is from the current leaderboard, but it isn't me...

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by David Watts

I'm 52 years old. People my age were only granted joystick skills worthy of games like Pong. I might consider buying a console gaming system if it was to come with a kid to play the games for me. Since, I'm not aware of that option being offered yet, I don't own one.

your words above " I would hate to see changes made that give OOTP an arcade or for that matter a console game feel."

and went on to say that they "pull the rug out form beneath you." [sic].. that doesn't happen... i can't say that for all of them, but any sports game i've played. i have enough 16-0, 82-0 and 162-0 seasons from childhood to confirm that... and i always played at teh most difficult level and settings. games rarely cheat, people usually just screw up and blame an inanimate object... they always operate the same way, this is why you can dominate them so thoroughly, eventually... you learn, it does not.

just helping with bad info... you spoke with familiarity of somethign you admit to never playing? that must be magic! Witch! burn the witch!

--- general response below

if the top win totals are 120's that's seems pretty fair. you can't think of it like 1 mlb year as far as frequency of X-number of wins being normal... how many 100's of leagues are running at the same time and re-running etc?

if it's as difficult to win as it is in the MLB, then 120-wins should occur at roughly the same rate, not simply be unreachable once or twice. seems like the difficulty isn't too easy. Some people know how to work a system, some don't or choose not to. no biggie... if you see 140's / 150's then it's nearing 'easiest.'

this mode of game isn't about an individual playing the way they want to... it's about all playing a certain way in order to be competitive / compare results etc. it inherently needs a one-size-fits-all settings solution... no one person will be satisfied by 100% of their choices.

other online sports leagues will ahve multiple 'modes' some with very diffictult and strict settings (like in golf - extremele fast / hard greens vs soft / slow)... and ranging in between easy and hard... each with their own leaderboard, too.

so, if enough players are using the mode, make 2 maybe 3 modes. unrestrictive, normal, restrictive, for example. Even then, you can't expect to like all the choices they made. everythign is re-useable, so it's a simple thing to do, once all the issues are hammered out, if any exist.

This is more like a public road than your driveway, as a parrallel concept.

[Airdrop01]

Attachment 502782

Originally Posted by Orcin

Apparently, it's not that hard. This is from the current leaderboard, but it isn't me...


Attachment 502745

I'm gonna have to try that era!!!

Though right now I'm playing the period you did as the Birds and I just followed up a WS win last year by assembling this for 1951:

[Airdrop01]

Great. As soon as I post that the first six weeks or so sim was like 18-16

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by NoOne

your words above " I would hate to see changes made that give OOTP an arcade or for that matter a console game feel."

and went on to say that they "pull the rug out form beneath you." [sic].. that doesn't happen... i can't say that for all of them, but any sports game i've played. i have enough 16-0, 82-0 and 162-0 seasons from childhood to confirm that... and i always played at teh most difficult level and settings. games rarely cheat, people usually just screw up and blame an inanimate object... they always operate the same way, this is why you can dominate them so thoroughly, eventually... you learn, it does not.

just helping with bad info... you spoke with familiarity of somethign you admit to never playing? that must be magic! Witch! burn the witch!

No, not my words. You quoted someone else.

Originally Posted by NoOne

if the top win totals are 120's that's seems pretty fair. you can't think of it like 1 mlb year as far as frequency of X-number of wins being normal... how many 100's of leagues are running at the same time and re-running etc?

if it's as difficult to win as it is in the MLB, then 120-wins should occur at roughly the same rate, not simply be unreachable once or twice. seems like the difficulty isn't too easy. Some people know how to work a system, some don't or choose not to. no biggie... if you see 140's / 150's then it's nearing 'easiest.'

In historical play, people will complain about a deviation from reality in strikeouts or home runs or ERA over the course of a 100-year sim, claiming that the game isn't accurate enough and needs tweaks. In fact, there was a recent patch tweaking the home run rate in current MLB. Apparently, this same enthusiasm for individual stat reality does not carry over to team performance and the level of competition in the game.

Since 1900, there have been six teams to win 110 or more games. No team has won 120. Yet, this guy wins 120 or more 8 times in 10 years, and you say "no biggie"? At the same time that you say that 120 wins should occur at roughly the same rate?

Yes, it should be possible to have a season or two that are among the best ever. But if someone can have a winning percentage of .750 for a 10-year stretch, then something is wrong. Either the game is too easy, or the AI is totally inept, or both. And this guy is not the only one to have this level of success.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Airdrop01

Though right now I'm playing the period you did as the Birds and I just followed up a WS win last year by assembling this for 1951:

A perfect example of my point, thanks.

The game should know that Hal Newhouser is a beast, and Detroit should mark him as "untouchable". Does the AI ever make a player untouchable? If anyone is, it's Newhouser (or Feller or Spahn for that matter). That fact that you could ever trade for Newhouser, or that a reasonably successful team like Detroit would let their star player go in free agency, is totally unrealistic.

If we want the AI to be competitive, we need to teach it to play the game. Yes, it will never be as good as a human. But letting Hal Newhouser get away is dumb and dumber.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by NoOne

your words above " I would hate to see changes made that give OOTP an arcade or for that matter a console game feel."

and went on to say that they "pull the rug out form beneath you." [sic].. that doesn't happen... i can't say that for all of them, but any sports game i've played. i have enough 16-0, 82-0 and 162-0 seasons from childhood to confirm that... and i always played at teh most difficult level and settings. games rarely cheat, people usually just screw up and blame an inanimate object... they always operate the same way, this is why you can dominate them so thoroughly, eventually... you learn, it does not.

just helping with bad info... you spoke with familiarity of somethign you admit to never playing? that must be magic! Witch! burn the witch!

--- general response below

if the top win totals are 120's that's seems pretty fair. you can't think of it like 1 mlb year as far as frequency of X-number of wins being normal... how many 100's of leagues are running at the same time and re-running etc?

if it's as difficult to win as it is in the MLB, then 120-wins should occur at roughly the same rate, not simply be unreachable once or twice. seems like the difficulty isn't too easy. Some people know how to work a system, some don't or choose not to. no biggie... if you see 140's / 150's then it's nearing 'easiest.'

this mode of game isn't about an individual playing the way they want to... it's about all playing a certain way in order to be competitive / compare results etc. it inherently needs a one-size-fits-all settings solution... no one person will be satisfied by 100% of their choices.

other online sports leagues will ahve multiple 'modes' some with very diffictult and strict settings (like in golf - extremele fast / hard greens vs soft / slow)... and ranging in between easy and hard... each with their own leaderboard, too.

so, if enough players are using the mode, make 2 maybe 3 modes. unrestrictive, normal, restrictive, for example. Even then, you can't expect to like all the choices they made. everythign is re-useable, so it's a simple thing to do, once all the issues are hammered out, if any exist.

This is more like a public road than your driveway, as a parrallel concept.

My bad and I won't let it happen again, or if I do, I will make sure to use at least 6000 words and do so in a way that leads most to quit reading after a paragraph or two.

[Hurricane75]

I feel like there should not be the option for the historical challenge mode - it's much too easy to know who will turn out good and who won't. Make all challenge mode games start at 2017 and move onward - you'll have name recognition for roughly 10-15 years, then you have no clue who may or may not turn out.

Also, please make sure that only the first season submitted to the challenge website counts - I'm tired of seeing people continually post the same season again (Note that I did that by accident, but at this moment it's severely lowering my average score).

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Hurricane75

Also, please make sure that only the first season submitted to the challenge website counts

We're working on that!

[jpeters1734]

i was having a lot of fun with challenge mode until I expanded and realized I couldn't touch the league structure anymore. so now I have Portland in the AL East

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Hurricane75

I feel like there should not be the option for the historical challenge mode - it's much too easy to know who will turn out good and who won't.

This is not really true. Recalc is not allowed in Challenge Mode. I have seen unknowns like Dick Kokos become stars and stars like Nellie Fox become scrubs.

[mking55]

Orcin, it kills me to say this, but you are a better man than I. I find the trading over 90% of the time super hard or impossible. Sometimes I can't even trade Babe Ruth for Joe Blow. Occasionally the game screws up and lets a horrible trade (in my favor) go through, but in general I find it next to impossible to make almost fair trades. I like when I am at a disadvantage in trades and have to lose a little to get what I want, but I don't want to give up the farm to get 1 chicken. So how do you beat the trade engine? I was quite happy with how the game had developed in the past few years regarding trading, but now (for me at least) it is next to impossible.

I don't know if this is in "challenge mode" only but I don't want any other GM's to offer me trades. They are offering me dreck for great players. I can't reason with them. If there is no chance of a trade unless I am a total idiot (instead of a partial one), then don't bother or fix it to offer tempting trades.

I agree with 5 of your 6 points. I don't agree with number 4 but if I had to take the other 5 only if I included number 4 in the deal, I'd go for it. I like for the AI to have little advantages, but only within reason.

[Orcin]

I never wait for the AI to offer me trades. I usually have to force myself to read their trade offers before rejecting them. I work on trades by identifying the player that I want, and offering various combinations of my high-value players until I get one that I like. I identify my high-value players by using the "make this work" button and noting who the AI repeatedly requests.

[TuckerDuckson]

I think challenge mode could go as far as maybe having a "stats only" option where ratings are purposefully removed, maybe as an uber challenge.

Also, I think it could go a long way if challenge mode removed the "strength circles" you see when you initiate trades. Because that's how you get very good prospects for dirt cheap, you go to a "win now team" see what prospects they have in blue then trade for those surplus prospects.

[Orcin]

Removing ratings does not make the game harder.

[Airdrop01]

Well, I just did a season as the 77 Royals. I don't think necessarily the huge scores are manipulating. I didn't make any trades and ended up running away with the division and beat Pittsburgh 4-1 in the series, Hal McRae hit a walk off 13th inning Grand Slam down by 3 with two out to take the series. I probably summed 3/4 of the games and played 1/4. When I play them I usually quickplay through five and then play out the last four innings, often simming those "until RISP."

Anyway, it was the highest score for a season I've had yet.

I do think if you take a crappy team, say, again, the QuickStart or Standard 2017 Royals, and leave settings alone, it's darned near impossible. I mean, if you go for thirty years you might be able to do it, but who wants to do that. The first year alone is utterly pointless. The owner goals and economics are killers.

Anyway, the '77 Royals were legit!

[Airdrop01]

Anyone know why I the "sweep" achievement (and some others) are locked? I mean, I've had to sweep easily over 50 series in the Mode. Yet, it's still locked.

[Scoman]

Originally Posted by Orcin

Removing ratings does not make the game harder.

So is that how you play...stats only?