OOTP vs FOF: Gameplay Decision-Making

[Anrhydeddu]

Our esteemed poster, QS, said this yesterday
For me, though, it still fails to be "interesting," which is every bit as important. As I have said countelss times on this board, I just don't think baseball has enough decisions for my tastes. Not enough players, not enough game decisions - for a text sports sim that is entirely built around these things (your players and what you do with them) it's just too limited. That's baseball, not OOTP I'm talking about.

So, you take a baseball sim, where there's already a fairly small range of things to do to begin with, and then start clipping off more and more of the actual decision-making from that starting point (in the name of making it more challenging, since every time we get a full-range decision we can outsmart the game's AI by leaps and bounds)... eventually it just becomes a hands-off simulation, and not a participatory exercise. That's simply not what I'm looking for in a game.

This is an issue that I have been thinking about for quite a while and more recently trying to figure out what I perceive OOTP to be far more interesting and fun to play than FOF. What I am keying on here is the common denominator of what makes text-based sims obsessive for many of us: critical decision-making and the consequences of those decisions.

Perhaps to contradict QS, I came up with the side by side comparison in each of the gameplay elements between OOTP and FOF and a brief description what I perceive the level of decision making. The experiences come from playing many seasons in OOTP, several seasons in FOF and being involved in the FOF4 GroupThink. Let’s take these elements in order as one goes through the off-season and season.

Setup

Whether this is important or not is irrelevant but OOTP has far more decisions to make regarding how you want your league to look. About all you can do in FOF is to change the names of the teams and perhaps use an alternative roster (or roster seed). For most I perceive, this would be like only have the option in OOTP to play the 2003 season with fictional players.

Team Population

I would say they are both even in this respect. You can choose have the AI populate all of the teams, have a dispersal draft or a one-by-one draft.

Team Financials

I put this here because it usually one of the things to look at before starting (as oppose to Player Financials which will be covered later). In FOF, all you have to look at are 1) the current salary cap and 2) how much space you have under the cap. That’s it. In OOTP, it is much more complex in that you can chose to have a league-wide cap, a personal team cap or adjusting other revenues streams (stadium size, TV contracts) that will directly affect the bottom line. We can argue whether the AI can manage its financials but the perception is that there are more decisions based on whether you are a small, medium or large market team whereas in FOF, the bottom line just does not mean anything (except in what you can spend up to the cap).

Free Agency

About the same, I think. Both have a pool of players and given your cap or money available, you decide whom to go after. One can also argue whether the bidding process against the AI is better in one game or the other and if so, that directly affects deciding whether to engage in a bidding war or not.

Drafting

About the same decision-wise, I think. However, given that FOF gives you much more information (too much, some would argue) on potentials draftees (as oppose to OOTP where it gives you very little), perhaps the consequences can lead to more predictability.

Pre-Season

All OOTP has is the insipid ST screen. About the only thing that is good for is that you can directly affect a player’s rating whereas in FOF, it becomes more of a dispersed team increase/decrease. More decisions are made in FOF not because of the training menus (which some ignore) but you have Pre-Season games where you can judge player’s performance before the season starts.

Gameplan/Depth Charts

Both games have depth charts/lineups to adjust but FOF has a more complex team strategy (gameplan) screens than OOTP. It is debatable whether they directly lead to better results, so the decision-making value may be tempered somewhat. However, as much as FOF has more perceived complexity in gameplan, roster management in OOTP offers more decision making solely based on the presence of the minor leagues. In FOF, your only personnel decision to make is whether to put him somewhere in the lineup, make him inactive, release or trade him. OOTP has all of that plus the ability to send him down to the minors. Because football does not have a minor league system, it could be an unfair comparison but because baseball does, that increases the decision making.

Season Play

Football has 16 regular season games and therefore, team and personnel decisions are made 16 times during the season. In baseball and OOTP, you can make the same level of decisions 162 times or as few as one time. Let’s take a bi-monthly sim schedule in OOTP which makes 12 break points. Both games gives you the opportunity to engage in Injuries Management but with a minor league system, OOTP gives you more options for player movements beyond just the leftover FA market. How about performance decisions? Both games give you the decision of affecting play time even though the football structure is more specific. There are more players to make decisions on in football but that is mitigated by the position groupings. I would argue that because of the presence of minor league developments, that increases the decisions for personnel replacements (for whatever reason) to beyond finding someone on the active roster, finding someone in FA or trading. As far as consequences of making personnel changes, getting a 8/7/7 pitcher replacing a 6/6/6 can easily make a difference. Or replacing a hole in the lineup with someone that has a much better OBP/SLG/OPS can make a real difference. Baseball is more of an individual game than football. In my mind, personnel decisions has more cause and effect in OOTP because of this whereas in FOF, a single player (excepting a star QB), the effect can be harder to see because there are so many other variables on whether a player can perform or not.

Player Financials

This involves primarily contract negotiations and extensions. It is probably a little more robust in FOF where you can have bonuses and voidable years but I perceive that they both offer about the same level of decision making.

I know I am forgetting some things and definitely glossed over others, but in my perception, the only area where FOF clearly offers more decision making is in the Pre-Season. In most other cases, the level of decision making is about the same, not including the added decision making on the minor league system.

FWIW.

[Darkiller]

not to sound idiot but if I'm correct OOTP has "media" interaction has one of its features isn't it ?

That is, at least to me, a point where FOF misses big time on.
CM -for instance, as it is the reference for text-based sport sims wether we like soccer or not- has it, continues to upgrade it with every version while the FOF/TCY games stick to NO MEDIA INTERACTIVITY at all...

that, I don't understand.

[Marmel]

OOTP has no media interaction.

[Easy Mac]

It has a "newspaper" that reports highlights and milestones, not exactly interaction. FOF has player of the week, which is essentially the same thing.

I'd say most ofthe faults listed for FOF (and probably OOTP) seem to be limitations of the particular sport. Its not a game decision by Jim or Markus, but how the games are played in real life.

[Fritz]

Do you own FOF4?

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Gameplan/Depth Charts
Both games have depth charts/lineups to adjust but FOF has a more complex team strategy (gameplan) screens than OOTP. It is debatable whether they directly lead to better results, so the decision-making value may be tempered somewhat.


Well, if you feel that the gameplans in FOF have little impact, then I suppose you would be right. After developing a few systems, I don't get that impression at all. Manipulation of gameplan has noticeable effects.


Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Gameplan/Depth Charts
However, as much as FOF has more perceived complexity in gameplan, roster management in OOTP offers more decision making solely based on the presence of the minor leagues. In FOF, your only personnel decision to make is whether to put him somewhere in the lineup, make him inactive, release or trade him. OOTP has all of that plus the ability to send him down to the minors. Because football does not have a minor league system, it could be an unfair comparison but because baseball does, that increases the decision making.


One could also say that the minor league system is a minor feature. Unless OOTP5 (I don;t own it) has added situational management rules and subs, then FOF4 has a much deeper management model.

To say all you do is plop a player in a slot can happen if you just plop a player in the depthchart and ignore the gameplan.

[QuikSand]

While I don't really disagree with your analysis on a wholesale level (though I see the slant pretty easily) I think you make a gross underestimation of football stategy here:

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
In FOF, your only personnel decision to make is whether to put him somewhere in the lineup, make him inactive, release or trade him. OOTP has all of that plus the ability to send him down to the minors. Because football does not have a minor league system, it could be an unfair comparison but because baseball does, that increases the decision making.


I wholly disagree that you have been at all fair with the "options" in FOF (or any football sim, in theory). Let's say that I have an outside linebacker, who has pretty good pass rushing skills, and is decent otherwise. I have a pretty wide array of options in how to use this player, other than just "in the lineup, inactive, release or trade" don't I?

Seems to me that with such a player, I could:

-Use him as a full-time starter on the strong side
-Use him as a full-time starter on the weak side
-Use him in pass-rushing situations from either side
-Use him as my main reserve from either side
-Use him as a reserve defensive end
-Use him as a defensive end in pass rushing situations

...and this doesn't even get into bigger changes that I can make with my defensive philosophy that might be based on his presence (I might decide to use him in certain passing situations, and then hike up my tendency to blitz the WLB in those situations, trying to cpitalize on his skills there).

To suggest that none of these decisions matter -- all of those you lump together as "somewhere in the lineup" gives the football decision-making process short shrift.


And this is what i'm talkig about when I say that football-- all else equal-- just seems to me to be better suited to a text sim than any other sport I can imagine. The number of players and the financial structure is already very good - having 53 players, nearly all of whom are used in some meaningful way, ensures that there's always something to do during the offseason, as contracts expire and new players immediately make an impact.

Howevr, it's deeper than that. Football is full of subtleties. And whether you like to spend a few minutes with this part of a particular sim or not, these are exactly the kind of thing that make a text sim worth playing for many people. In a football sim (FOF) you can dictate your decision about how "all-out" you want your defense to play when it suepects a running play. Doing so sacrifices some ability to stop the unexpected pass, but based on your players' skills it might be wise to do. You can decide how often to blitz to create QB pressure-- when, how frequently, who comes, etc. All of these things have trade-offs in strategy, and they come up very, very regularly in every single game. On offense, the options are obviously huge-- power inside running, fleet-footed backs running outside, contained outlet passing, short dink passing, downfield aggressive passing-- al are perfectly valid options for a team, based on their relative mixes of skills among their players. And again - each has benefits and detriments, and each one of thse decisions is not some tangantial part of game strategy -- it's the main thrust of the game itself.

I'm not knocking baseball. There are things to do in baseball, of course. From time to time, you have to decide whether to bunt, sacrifice, intentionally walk, and so forth. They all come up from time to time - and have some effect on the game's outcome.

But there's simply nothing in baseball decision-making that comes anywhere near rivaling football decision-making. In football, every single play is the result of careful planning and execution by both the offense and defense, with every single player on the field having specific responsibilities that are important. Baseball, from time to time, likes to wax poetic about being a "chess game," but the real chess game in sports is in American football.


In my mind, I'm not knocking baseball, nor am I really trying to be too harsh on OOTP. I bought three versions of OOTP - paid cash money for each of them. Why? becaue it has enough promise to keep me playing, to keep me trying to restart a career in serach of some entertainment.

But over the same time I have owned OOTP in its various versions, I have found infinitely more replay value in FOF. Part of that is that I firmly believe that FOF--despite its warts-- is simply a far more well-conceived game than is OOTP, and part of that comes from the fact that I think professional football is simply a better fit for a text sim than baseball is. Plain and simple.

[Anrhydeddu]

I do own FOF4 but found it to be less interesting and fun than the previous versions (of which I got bored playing after 3-5 seasons). You know, maybe it does come down to Lahman as being the difference maker. I love baseball history more than I do football or current baseball. I don't know.

Manipulation of gameplan has noticeable effects.

Again, this is debatable. I can replace two mediocre SP with two star SP and see a significant difference. I may get a good RB and bump up the run pct. but that does not (or should not) mean that he will perform better. There are too many other situational effects to know if the decisions you make mean that much. There clearly is the opportunity for it to be but experience shows that outside of a few key indicators, you can leave them alone or just have them default and you will get expected results.

[Anrhydeddu]

QS, thanks for your thoughtful response. I do agree with you that football does make a better text sims than baseball except that I believe the economic model of baseball offers more variability. What it comes down to, imo, is at what level does the gamer chooses to manage (and consequently, the level of decision-making). There is no wrong or right way to play these games and I think my only point is that for me, I have found (or chosen) the level of decision making to be more interesting and engaging in OOTP, whereas others believe just the opposite. Both are correct.

[condors]

just to defend text based baseball DMB plays much different than ootp in single player mode, when you play the game(not just sim it) i get really into it. The version i have the phillies are a bad team and i try to see how many wins "I" can get them

In fof i feel like "I" make decsions that get my team an extra couple of wins

In ootp i feel i do what any rational person would do and my wins will come from trades or roster building , setting your lineups/pitching roles isn't that tough

in fof your gameplan has alot of things you can do to help your team out and if you call the plays (i usually have a career where i call every play) you feel you can change the outcome of the game

[QuikSand]

Is there a meaningful difference, in your mind between these two things:

-Playing OOTP with an optional self-imposed salary cap that other teams don't have to follow?

-Playing FOF with a house rule that you must stay under a self-impose reduced salary cap?

[DukeRulesMAB]

I think the critical thing that makes football a better sim environment than baseball is the number of games in a season. Though I don't tend to "game plan", I do like to look at the box scores/make injury adjustments after each games, see who had a monster game, see who's having a monster season, etc. I don't mean PBP the games or anything, just sim a game, look at the box.

If you do that in baseball, you finish one season in the time it would take to do *10* football seasons. And given that I (and I think most text simmers) love the offseason management, that's just an unacceptable time ratio.

So baseball simmers are left to one of the following:

1 - Sim larger chunks of games at times, thereby losing the "feel" of what is going on in a game to game basis, and in turn not getting as attached to your players

or

2- Sim one game at a time, getting immersed in the career, but moving horribly slowly.


And I say all this as someone who prefers baseball to football as a sport immensely, especially on the pro level.

I do think feel that for me, baseball makes a better multi-player sim though (and of course I'm biased by having a fabulous experience in that), because it allows you to do the game-to-game immersion while still moving at a fairly quick rate. Given the paucity of in-season personnell moves (other than adjusted for injuries), I think there's a good chance multi-player football would became rather dull, especially for those who do not "game plan". Also as a stat dork, baseball is a much more fertile ground than football, where some positions barely even have stats, and others largely have stats which are so biased by context as to be meaningless.

But as a single-player sim, there is no contest between the two. A large part of the "fun" of a text sim is getting a history behind you and career marks and Hall of Famers, etc., and it's impossible to do that in a baseball sim in a reasonable period of playing time without sacrificing some of the feeling of being connected to your team.

[Anrhydeddu]

Originally posted by QuikSand
Is there a meaningful difference, in your mind between these two things:

-Playing OOTP with an optional self-imposed salary cap that other teams don't have to follow?

-Playing FOF with a house rule that you must stay under a self-impose reduced salary cap?

Yes and no. Both have the effect of forcing you to be selective in free agency purchases or trades that take on more salary. That is one of the key decision making elements of either game (the most important and fun, imo). Without the self-imposition in OOTP, you gain that much more advantage over the AI. In FOF, on the other hand, we already have an advantage over the AI in being able to identify and value players more accurately than the AI. The question becomes, as we wrestled with in GT, is how to impose a rule that reduces such advantage. In OOTP, salary cap (or market limitations) is more realistic (as in the case of comparing the Expos with the Yankees). But is this the way to go in football/FOF? What will give the AI better ability to go after and value FAs (and trades) while reducing your chance at them? I am not convinced that a self-imposed reduced salary cap is the best answer, as it would be for baseball.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Sorry QS, but reading through this thread, it appears to me that your arguments are mostly based in your basic approach -- that football is the "chess game" sport instead of baseball. And I couldn't disagree more,

Although I don't believe OOTP successfully captures that distinction completely (or even very well in the absence of pitch-by-pitch play), I think a lot of where people come down on this debate is going to go back to their overall attitude about the real-life sport. IMO, that's going to influence the "depth of decision-making" perception significantly enough that there's not a truly objective opinion likely to occur.

Not kickin' you for your preferences, just making an observation. No matter how misguided and bewildering I find your preference to be :)

[Arles]

I have a general question for you guys based on the comments by Condor:

"In fof i feel like "I" make decsions that get my team an extra couple of wins

In ootp i feel i do what any rational person would do and my wins will come from trades or roster building , setting your lineups/pitching roles isn't that tough"


Out of curiosity, which would you guys prefer in a game. Do you guys prefer to

1. have the challenge in amassing a talented team via personnel moves and setting the right depth charts/lineups?

or

2. being able to take a less talented team to a couple more wins with good gameplanning?

Obviously, a mix of both is probably what most would say. But I'm just curious as to which of the two you guys enjoy doing more when playing.

Arlie

[ISiddiqui]

Although I don't believe OOTP successfully captures that distinction completely (or even very well in the absence of pitch-by-pitch play), I think a lot of where people come down on this debate is going to go back to their overall attitude about the real-life sport. IMO, that's going to influence the "depth of decision-making" perception significantly enough that there's not a truly objective opinion likely to occur.

Ah, finally... the words of a wise man :D.

I totally agree. Reading QS's post, I got the feeling that his attitude towards real life sports is that the football has more decisions and is more complex than baseball. He talks about the different places you can put the player in FOF, but much discuss different lineup spots and their effects in OOTP. I think it is totally the opposite, making OOTP have more decisions than FOF :D. I'm pretty sure I'd do the opposite of QS, saying OOTP requires you to do all this while not really touching on what FOF allows you to do. It totally depends on your outlook on the real life sport.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Arles
Out of curiosity, which would you guys prefer in a game. Do you guys prefer to

....

Obviously, a mix of both is probably what most would say. But I'm just curious as to which of the two you guys enjoy doing more when playing.

Arlie

Arlie - Put me down for a #2 over easy with grits.

[Anrhydeddu]

Seems to me that with such a player, I could:

-Use him as a full-time starter on the strong side
-Use him as a full-time starter on the weak side
-Use him in pass-rushing situations from either side
-Use him as my main reserve from either side
-Use him as a reserve defensive end
-Use him as a defensive end in pass rushing situations


I wonder how many that tries to play FOF just hit the 'Recommend' button, thus removing any decision making from such a process? Or more accurately, just put their 4 best LBs somewhere and leave the rest as backups somewhere (as the 'Recommend' would do). I think it comes down to whether you believe such fine tuning makes that much difference to justify the level of decision making. To me (and perhaps the crux of the argument), your examples are not true decisions to bother with. You (QS) make the argument that in football, these are critical decisions to make and that is probably true. But in a game, they are not for some. Baseball/OOTP can have just as much or as little decision making as you prefer, just like in football/FOF.

[Anrhydeddu]

Arles, put me down for #1 with a side of mix. Playing as a GM is far more fun than playing as a coach, imnsho.

[Axxon]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I wonder how many that tries to play FOF just hit the 'Recommend' button, thus removing any decision making from such a process? Or more accurately, just put their 4 best LBs somewhere and leave the rest as backups somewhere (as the 'Recommend' would do). I think it comes down to whether you believe such fine tuning makes that much difference to justify the level of decision making. To me (and perhaps the crux of the argument), your examples are not true decisions to bother with. You (QS) make the argument that in football, these are critical decisions to make and that is probably true. But in a game, they are not for some. Baseball/OOTP can have just as much or as little decision making as you prefer, just like in football/FOF.

/raises hand

That would be me but for the most part I don't do much more in OOTP either. I'd like to do more, but given the nature of the games I just don't. Only in CM do I find a balance between sim length, importance of personell decisions and micromanagement.

Baseball, as noted, just takes too damned long and football, as current computer limitations seem to demand is too far beyond the info given to make the decisions interesting. There's no tangible "reward" for doing what Quik suggests above for me as I manage to field winners and improvers with ease without going there.

I don't ever really feel the need to wrest one more win as I know that in a few minutes I'll be in the offseason where I can do enough to wrest a deep playoff run by my decisions there. It's a no brainer.

CM though is different. You have a short of enough schedule to actually play every game and the permutations of the 11 man squad make a huge difference and one that you can wrap your mind around when tinkering. It's like Othello, it takes minutes to comprehend, a lifetime to master. Football is hard to get right so from a "game" point of view it's less compelling to those not trying to master the real sport.

The sport also has a HUGE advantage over baseball and football, "game" wise as it's real time. Football is a play driven sport which works exceptionally well in real life but bogs down in a game. There's too much stop and start and immersion is blown many times a game and I at least begin realizing that it gets boring calling the handfull of plays that you determine early the computer is weak against, over and over till time runs out.

Baseball is even worse as the decision making is limited to even less meaningful ones ( gamewise ) per contest and oh, the number of contests.

I bring this up not because CM is a great game but because I firmly believe soccer has a better blend of elements for computer gameplay purposes. Hockey does too and I think that's why I love hockey sims but can't bear the sport in real life.

[Fritz]

Is it fair to compare a game one gushes over to a game one tears into at every opportunity?

[Bee]

Originally posted by DukeRulesMAB
I think the critical thing that makes football a better sim environment than baseball is the number of games in a season. Though I don't tend to "game plan", I do like to look at the box scores/make injury adjustments after each games, see who had a monster game, see who's having a monster season, etc. I don't mean PBP the games or anything, just sim a game, look at the box.

If you do that in baseball, you finish one season in the time it would take to do *10* football seasons. And given that I (and I think most text simmers) love the offseason management, that's just an unacceptable time ratio.

So baseball simmers are left to one of the following:

1 - Sim larger chunks of games at times, thereby losing the "feel" of what is going on in a game to game basis, and in turn not getting as attached to your players

or

2- Sim one game at a time, getting immersed in the career, but moving horribly slowly.


And I say all this as someone who prefers baseball to football as a sport immensely, especially on the pro level.

I do think feel that for me, baseball makes a better multi-player sim though (and of course I'm biased by having a fabulous experience in that), because it allows you to do the game-to-game immersion while still moving at a fairly quick rate. Given the paucity of in-season personnell moves (other than adjusted for injuries), I think there's a good chance multi-player football would became rather dull, especially for those who do not "game plan". Also as a stat dork, baseball is a much more fertile ground than football, where some positions barely even have stats, and others largely have stats which are so biased by context as to be meaningless.

But as a single-player sim, there is no contest between the two. A large part of the "fun" of a text sim is getting a history behind you and career marks and Hall of Famers, etc., and it's impossible to do that in a baseball sim in a reasonable period of playing time without sacrificing some of the feeling of being connected to your team.

I totally agree. When playing a game I like to form some type of attachment to my character(s) in the game. With a football sim, this is much easier because you of the limited number of games it's a simpler and quicker task to view every game they play. With baseball, the number of games involved just would take too long to form that attachment without sacrificing the pleasure of simming multiple seasons relatively quickly.

While I see the points that QS and Anryhdoddle are making, for me this is the key. Good post Duke.

[Bee]

Arlie.

I think most would like both, but if I had to chose just one, I'd take the first one and hope it provided enough challenge to keep my interest.

[condors]

Arles,

I don't see how you can't have both

want i would love to see in ootp after simming the regular season the online league (which is great in an active league)

the ability to have a pitch by pitch simulation

tell the pitcher to pound him inside, batter gets ahead in count lets send the guy on first base,

I woul also let "books" on players, this guy is a first ball fastball guy, will go fishing for balls down out of the zone

also allow players to update and have their own scouting reports for players or better yet be able to look at the players last 10 at bats against the current pitcher

there is a whole lot of baseball that could really be tapped in to

[Karim]

I definitely prefer #1 and could minimally care about #2. I like to be a GM and thus it is my responsibility to get the right coaching staff in place to set the gameplans. These decisions along with personnel moves will hopefully shape the team into the type I prefer: hitting/pitching, offense/defense, etc.

While I prefer not to gameplan, I accept it in CM because there is no doubt I see positive and negative effects based on my decisions. Plus, in soccer, the manager is the "head coach" so there is no way around it. In FOF4, what is the difference between 0.8% & 0.9%? That's where I would have to hit recommend and hope everything goes well (which isn't ideal). FOF2001 struck the right balance but FOF4 went too far towards #2 for my liking (thanks to Jim releasing a demo) that I knew it wasn't for me.

I haven't played OOTP enough to comment but PureSim at least emphasizes the importance of hiring the right manager, allows me to set the lineups and conditions, and let's me ignore the pitch-by-pitch decisions even though it's available to those who want it.

Every gamer has a unique perspective on what is important in a SMG and which sport is preferable or more enjoyable. It is impossible for the programmer to satisfy everyone so eventually his vision has to take over and we judge whether to purchase or not.

[cuervo72]

Hmm, I'm still probably a relative novice compared to the rest of you regarding text sims, but here are some of my thoughts.

As re Arles' question, I would lean towards #1, for the most part. I haven't delved into the gameplan screens of FOF4 for the most part, and have been reluctant to because of the sheer depth that there is in the gameplan and my limited knowledge of coaching strategy (despite having played in HS). I really have no idea what percentage of the time I should be running, passing, blitzing, etc. If I invested more time in the game I could get a hang of it, but I don't always have that. I leave it up to my coaches to formulate a gameplan, but have no idea to what extent it is hindering my team's results.

I have grown up following baseball statistics, which are simple and easy for me to get my mind around. And they are pretty much standard across the board - hitting stats will apply to all hitters, etc. There is much more to consider in football. Blocking stats for O-linemen, passes defensed/intercepted for DB's and to some extent linebackers, tackles, sacks, etc. Different stats are important for RB, WR's. I don't yet know what levels should be set as standards for a good player - and in what system - where in baseball I can see a player with a .300 BA (I won't get into OPS here) and assume he's a pretty good hitter.

If not taken on a pitch by pitch basis, baseball strategy is much simpler. I'll harken back to MicroLeague, where all you needed to do on defense was select one of 4 pitches, and on offense select bunt, steal, swing away, run aggressive or run cautiously. Each AB was basically treated as 1 play. Not a lot of depth, but I would play whole seasons (162 games worth, with each game roughly an hour) that way, and I loved it. But the biggest thrill of the game was drafting players (based on real stats) and working trades with my fellow (human) GM's. That's the real game planning in baseball, putting together the lineup. Do that, wind 'em up and let 'em go. Individual game results aren't important, but trends are.

I've yet to buy OOTP, but baseball seems to lend itself to trades better than football. Both have FA, so that seems to be a wash. I'd give football an edge draft-wise, and like the draft model in FOF.

[Vince]

Originally posted by Fritz
Arlie - Put me down for a #2 over easy with grits.

The question is, are those instant grits, or are you a self-respecting southerner?

Seriously though, I agree wholly with Fritz. Until AI develops to the point where I don't feel like I'm cheating by trading with it, I think that being able to wrest 2 or 3 more wins out of a mediocre team is MUCH more rewarding than building a team through FA or trades. Don't get me wrong, trading and FA signing to build a solid team is rewarding as well...but in setting the correct roles, etc, it is more of a personal accomplishment, in my opinion.

[sabotai]

As for Arles question....during the season I'm #2, during the off-season I'm #1. I guess I'm saying I do both. And to be honest, I have more fun doing #2.....that sounded bad.

A, I definaly pay attention to the details. If I have a good OLB with great Pass-rushing skills, he gets put into the WOLB position and have him blitz. I don't have any hard numbers, but in the many seasons I have played FOF4, I have noticed that weakside OLB with great Pass Rushing skills get more sacks than those with average pass rushing skills, thus providing the results.

The thing that I have noticed (and I'm taking baseball vs football, not FOF vs OOTP) is that talent means more in baseball and not so much in football. In football, there are so many variables that go into just one play, that it is very easy to misuse a player and thus negating his talents. How many times have we seen a football player be average on one team, but go to a different team and suddenly be a star?

So I'll add a little here to what QS is saying. IMO, Baseball is a good sport to sim at the macro level, while football is a good sport to sim at the micro level.

If all you want to do is gain talent, sim seasons, amass stars, etc. etc. then I think baseball is a good choice.

If you want to pay attention to the details, create a game-to-game strategy, mess with depth charts, etc. etc. then football is a good choice.

I think this is what QS means by decision making. Your bombarded with decisions to make all the time in football. In baseball, you're not. That's not a bad thing. It's just a clear indication of which way you prefer to play. Long term, sim many seasons vs. short-term, game-to-game.

I think when this topic comes up, it's always funny because QS starts off by just talking about football vs. baseball, and everyone else dives into an FOF vs. OOTP debate, basically ignoring what QS said (or takes it out of context) :)

[Anrhydeddu]

I think this is what QS means by decision making. Your bombarded with decisions to make all the time in football. In baseball, you're not.

I disagree in concept. There are decisions are coach can making on every single pitch. However, I don't think any of us chose to play at that level but it's there in real life. You can argue that each of those decisions are minor or subtle and I would agree, but given the amount of pitches and at-bats, it can add up to a real mind game.

So I'll add a little here to what QS is saying. IMO, Baseball is a good sport to sim at the macro level, while football is a good sport to sim at the micro level.

Which begs the question how Arles' TPF will play knowing that 400's strength's are at the macro level (and online as well). I would argue that football is also a good sport to sim at the macro level and that's what I personally hope to see from 400 (the micro level is covered well with FOF).

[sabotai]

"I disagree in concept. There are decisions are coach can making on every single pitch. However, I don't think any of us chose to play at that level but it's there in real life. You can argue that each of those decisions are minor or subtle and I would agree, but given the amount of pitches and at-bats, it can add up to a real mind game. "

I was thinking more or less game-to-game decisions and not game-time decisions. But to answer, I would argue that play selection for football plays much more into the outcome of a football game than does pitch-to-pitch decisions determine the outcome of a baseball game. (I'm just talking about manager/coach decisions here. Not the decisions the players have to make. I would say the two sports are about equal in that area.)

[kcchief19]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
As far as consequences of making personnel changes, getting a 8/7/7 pitcher replacing a 6/6/6 can easily make a difference. Or replacing a hole in the lineup with someone that has a much better OBP/SLG/OPS can make a real difference.
I suppose since I am probably the Anryhydeddu of FOF, I should get involved here. :)

This is my current beef with OOTP and what has caused me to abandon my current career and start a TCY dynasty. Far too often I will have or see on another team a 8/7/7 pitcher implode with an ERA over 6.00 (or worse). Sure that might happen over a short-period of time, but how often would you see a real-life scenario like this:

Pitcher rated 9/10/5 age 28-30, scout Legendary
1974: 10-21, 5.73 ERA
1975: 6-22, 6.37 ERA
1976: 8.17, 5.81 ERA

Based on his ratings, this guy is a premier pitcher in the league at giving up both his and runs, yet all he has done in his prime is getting pounded like a drum. The elasticity of ratings to performance is much wider in OOTP than FOF. Great players in FOF can have bad seasons, but I have never seen a discrepancy that wide.

OOTP is fine for what it does. I recognize it as the premier baseball sim on the market, and it's a great sim for anyone who wants to micromanage a series of preferences and customization in order to generate realistic results before they ever actually play the game.

I disagree with Jon's assessment that this has more to do with whether you like baseball vs. football. I am a much bigger baseball fan and I have probably bought just about every baseball sim on the market since MicroLeague Baseball on the Apple II. I have never played one that provided the enjoyment of FOF, primarily due to the fact that I believe my success in the game is due to 90 percent good game playing and 10 percent luck, whereas I think the breakdown in OOTP is much closer to 50/50.

In regards to Arlie's question, obviously both options are nice, but I would lean toward No. 1 being the preference, particuarly for a sim performance. In "real life," I believe that instances of less-talented teams winning have little to do with game planning but more with intangibles that are difficult to create in a sim. I mean, how do you build the Rally Monkey into a baseball sim? I think option 1 provides the gamer with more challenge without the gimmicks option 2 requires.

[Arles]

I saw a few questions about the level of micro vs. macro management in TPF, so I will point you guys to a thread where I layed out my plan for this (as it relates to gameplans):

http://www.400softwarestudios.com/board/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39441

But back to the above issue. As a player, I get much more enjoyment out of trying to actually gather together a good team based on personnel. Remember, that good isn't just a matter of talent, it's a matter of talent, roles, chemistry and the ability to maintain over time. To me, there is nothing more frustrating than battling for 5-6 seasons in any sim to amass a good team, then go on to lose half my games with no injuries. :mad:

The caveat to all this is that the actual task of compiling a good team has to be difficult enough to make it a challenge, but not too difficult to where everything seems to happen at random. Which leads me into my opinions as a developer ;)

It is hard to make a game that will be easy enough for a novice to enjoy, yet challenging enough to where guys like Quicksand won't need to resort to a draconian "Bare cupboard with no talent for 15 years" set of house rules to also enjoy :D

That's why I do think there needs to be some sort of slider for things like trade AI difficulty. I don't, however, think that you should ever be able to modify the engine difficulty in any way. That leads to too much of a "console video game" feel.

As to gameplans, I think that number 2 in my above question should be in any football game. Jim does this well in FOF, IMO. Football is a sport where you can squeeze a couple extra wins from good gameplanning, much moreso than in a sport like baseball. But, as a player, I find myself more interested in drafting future stars, signing key FA pieces and making tough cap decisions than I do at setting up specific gameplans.

That's probably why I tried to set up TPF to allow for gameplans to be delegated to your coordinators (with some strategic guidance), as well as the option to completely micromanaged the process.

Arlie

[Anrhydeddu]

bump

I love the way Arles thinks. :)