Good Puresim News

[lynchjm24]

Thanks to QS -

http://pub5.ezboard.com/fpuresimbase...icID=170.topic


The most exciting part being that we can tweak financials in the XML.

[Grid Iron]

Any idea if the financial model can be tweaked to reflect dollars rather than franchise points?

Honestly, that is the primary reason I buy OOTP over PureSim.

[Anrhydeddu]

* Entire model is wide open - For those of you that have the inclination, ALL parameters to the new financial model are exposed in the puresim.xml file (warning: use at your own risk). The bottom line is you can tweak aspects of the model to suit your style. This is for advanced users only!

Does anyone here think that this is a GREAT idea? I have never understood the mindset of some developers thinking that most, if not all, parameters must be uneditable or a hidden secret.

[McSweeny]

yes this is a great idea, i think more developers should go this route

[lynchjm24]

I love the Puresim XML - I am very interested in being able to tweak the way it creates players and it is a great vehicle.

[Ben E Lou]

Gee, that sounds like a lot of fun. Tweak the numbers. Play 10 seasons. Realize they aren't quite right. Tweak 'em again. Play 10 more seasons. Ugh. Give me hard, correct numbers, rather than never knowing if I'm playing right.

[HornedFrog Purple]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Gee, that sounds like a lot of fun. Tweak the numbers. Play 10 seasons. Realize they aren't quite right. Tweak 'em again. Play 10 more seasons. Ugh. Give me hard, correct numbers, rather than never knowing if I'm playing right.

These type of outbursts are uncalled for. Clearly as long as it is used for immersion purposes, a consistant engine be damned. Immersion through customization is the only thing that makes a sim nowadays, now drop and give me 20.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SkyDog
Gee, that sounds like a lot of fun. Tweak the numbers. Play 10 seasons. Realize they aren't quite right. Tweak 'em again. Play 10 more seasons. Ugh. Give me hard, correct numbers, rather than never knowing if I'm playing right.

Problem is what I think is right - is going to be different then what others think is right. If I can make the game a harder challenge by having this ability - I'm all for it.

I'm learning that what I'm looking for in these games is different then what most others want. I just want the damn things to be hard - and not just hard like CM because I don't know how to coach a Soccer team.

[dawgfan]

I fall into the camp that favors the ability to customize the game. I still think the developer and testers should do as much as they can to make sure the default settings are "correct", but that shouldn't prevent the user from having the option to adjust them if they so desire. There's nothing that says you have to adjust the settings if you don't want to SkyDog.

As for the salary "points", I can't imagine that Shaun would be doing this unless he has or is planning to get MLB and/or MLBPA licensing for his game. This would be a perfect area for customization - let the units be customizable to dollars if so desired, and allow a multiplier value to be applied to the amounts.

[Ben E Lou]

To get more specific, the problem I see with that level of customization is that it allows the developer to be lazy. You KNOW he's not going to spend the time to make sure that the game is producing accurate results if the user can fix it himself. I'm convinced that high user customization decreases the "out-of-the-box" experience. I don't want to have to tweak my game. That's the developer's job. My job is to play the game.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SkyDog
To get more specific, the problem I see with that level of customization is that it allows the developer to be lazy. You KNOW he's not going to spend the time to make sure that the game is producing accurate results if the user can fix it himself. I'm convinced that high user customization decreases the "out-of-the-box" experience. I don't want to have to tweak my game. That's the developer's job. My job is to play the game.

You are right about that - but I don't think that developers are being lazy. I think they just can't be everything to everyone. OOTP does listen to it's fan base - problem is the fan base is very different then I am, I tried being in an online league and it was just stupid, and I hated it. Puresim listens to it's fanbase, which because it doesn't have multiplayer is geared more towards things I want to do with the game. After just 2 posts from QS, Shaun made some huge changes with the game that might help make it the elusive challenging solo game.

[McSweeny]

oh but skydog, one could also claim that it's the developers job to beta test the game as well and not the customers right?

[lynchjm24]

One other thing about Puresim.

Last night I took OOTP and made a super player - moved his stadiums fences in to 310 feet (it was the lowest number Puresim would allow). Player didn't do any differently then he would have if the fences were 500 feet - I think he hit 40 homeruns or something. Took Puresim and found a super player - moved the fences in all the way - he 103 HR - which shows me that the game actually might have some physics involved instead of just numbers running through the OOTP engine. To me the basics of a baseball game should be physics - not statistics.

[HornedFrog Purple]

You can do the same thing with triples in OOTP. Move the fences to 500 feet then to 310 feet and watch what happens.

I am just going to hit the ball... just enough.... so I will get a triple, although the triples I hit in the cavern would be homeruns in the little league park.

But thats blasphemy, clearly I am doing something wrong.

[Anrhydeddu]

SkyDog, you are falling into the trap again assuming that there is an absolute right when it comes to modelling. You could not have predicted the downturn in runs last season in the MLB after so many years of dramatically increasing. Nor could you predict the extraordinary number of OT games in the NFL. Nor could you have predicted a year ago the death of the FA market in the MLB for this offseason. Nor could you predict a team X having an extraordinary rash of injuries. You sound like you want everything to be completely static and while that may work well for one season, how about 10-20 seasons from now? Do you assume the same static model will apply then as they do now? Besides, a lot of it is perception (like the argument about clutch hitting). Who's to say your (or the developer's) perception or analysis of the entity is the "right" model?

I'm arguing part as a devil's advocate because it should present the results within the range of reasonableness. However, there is always room for options. Your way of playing cannot be the only way or the true way. It may be the most proper way but a game should not be so limited that it leaves little room for creativity, flexibility, experimentation and fun alternatives. Don't you agree?

To be more specific. Tell me how I can alter FOF4 so I have a 26 team league? Tell me how I can alter a baseball sim so it can model the finances of the 1890s? You will tell me that I can't and I will reply why shouldn't be able to? Are you telling me that I must only play with a 32 team league? And that I must play with a 2003 financial baseball model? That seems to be quite restrictive and limiting.

[sabotai]

If you knew Shaun the way his "followers" know him (been following Puresim since Shaun announced it oh so many years ago), you know that he will test and tweak the numbers. Since when does customization = developer laziness?

[Bee]

Although I understand SkyDog's concerns and I think they are valid ones, I prefer being able to customize things like this. I know there are things about various sims that I think are obviously flawed and the designer or other gamers think are perfect. There is nothing I can do to address it, so I'm stuck with a flawed product (in my eyes). Hopefully, the developers are cognizant enough to realize that many will not customize and still spend sufficient time tweaking the default settings to provide those folks with a pleasant gaming experience.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by sabotai
If you knew Shaun the way his "followers" know him (been following Puresim since Shaun announced it oh so many years ago), you know that he will test and tweak the numbers. Since when does customization = developer laziness?

Maybe I misread the post (or its intent) but I don't think he was as much predicting developer laziness as he was fearing developer laziness.

FWIW, that was pretty much my first thought when I saw the bit about customization too. And that's even with a pretty doggone healthy respect/opinion of Shaun's work. After years of gaming/simming, it's almost hard not to have that knee-jerk fear IMO.

[MizzouRah]

After years of gaming/simming, it's almost hard not to have that knee-jerk fear IMO.

Dead on, Jon. Memories of searching for the right tune file come to mind.


Todd

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Nor could you have predicted a year ago the death of the FA market in the MLB for this offseason.

Have to disagree with you on this one.

[SackAttack]

Customization is a good thing, but I do think Shaun needs to balance the financials as well as he can even with that. You just know there's gonna be somebody who buys it and then wonders why it's all screwed up - we saw the same thing with High Heat. Even with the tune file customization, people still complained about it.

Leave the leeway, but put the effort into making it top notch on its own two feet as well.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
One other thing about Puresim.

Last night I took OOTP and made a super player - moved his stadiums fences in to 310 feet (it was the lowest number Puresim would allow). Player didn't do any differently then he would have if the fences were 500 feet - I think he hit 40 homeruns or something. Took Puresim and found a super player - moved the fences in all the way - he 103 HR - which shows me that the game actually might have some physics involved instead of just numbers running through the OOTP engine. To me the basics of a baseball game should be physics - not statistics.

You didn't see a change because you editted the wrong variable. In OOTP, it's the stadium's park effects that has the majority of the influence on batting statistics. Change the park effects to a Coors Field-like atmosphere and you'll likely get similar results as the Puresim model.

[Buddy Grant]

Originally posted by HornedFrog Purple
You can do the same thing with triples in OOTP. Move the fences to 500 feet then to 310 feet and watch what happens.

I am just going to hit the ball... just enough.... so I will get a triple, although the triples I hit in the cavern would be homeruns in the little league park.

But thats blasphemy, clearly I am doing something wrong.

The park distances are just for play by play, the park effects (right beside the park dimensions) will determine the amount of triples hit in your stadium.

[Barkeep49]

Originally posted by SackAttack
Customization is a good thing, but I do think Shaun needs to balance the financials as well as he can even with that. You just know there's gonna be somebody who buys it and then wonders why it's all screwed up - we saw the same thing with High Heat. Even with the tune file customization, people still complained about it.

Leave the leeway, but put the effort into making it top notch on its own two feet as well.

I know that Shaun has been doing extensive play testing which is why he hasn't released it already so I have a fair amount of faith that it'll be good. If not then he needs to fix it since I agree that the settings "out of the box" need to be among the best out there.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Nor could you have predicted a year ago the death of the FA market in the MLB for this offseason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Have to disagree with you on this one.

I think that is part of the beauty of his whole point. Just because you could predict something doesn't mean that everyone else will be able to as well. This basic form of thought can be applied to any subject therefore options are always the best way to go. Most developers are intelligent enough to know that options alone will not allow their games to survive and that if it weren’t for a sound foundation those options wouldn't even exist in the first place. It makes sense for a developer to give us what they have and let us decide what to do with it.

Originally posted by Bee
Although I understand SkyDog's concerns and I think they are valid ones, I prefer being able to customize things like this. I know there are things about various sims that I think are obviously flawed and the designer or other gamers think are perfect. There is nothing I can do to address it, so I'm stuck with a flawed product (in my eyes). Hopefully, the developers are cognizant enough to realize that many will not customize and still spend sufficient time tweaking the default settings to provide those folks with a pleasant gaming experience.

Words taken from my very own mouth.

[Shaun Sullivan]

One thing I should point out is that in PureSim's case (and many other games). The ability to tweak the game engine via a data file is initially built for the developer, not the end user.

It is MUCH better to build a data-driven game engine as opposed to hard-coding key models into the game. This lets the developer (and designers) balance and tweak the game without having to go in change the code, re-compile etc... That is an expensive cycle.

In some cases (as is PureSim's) the ability to tweak the game is left in there for the end users. This does not mean the game hasn't been balanced by the developer. On the contrary, I have tweaked every line of that file (and it's 1000+ lines long). I tweak until I get as good an "out of the box" experience as possible, but since people's idea of that can be a moving target, the ability to tweak can possibly help broaden the game's appeal.

For example, in PureSim things like the impact of weather, the aging model, stats,trading frequncy,salaries and physics results can all be tweaked. Do 95% of users ever open that file? No. But for the 5% that do, sometimes they do some really neat things (in some cases I have employed some savvy user tweaks as default values in future releases).

In then end, I think everyone wins. (Sorry if that sounded like a rant - it wasn't supposed to -- interesting topic.)

Shaun Sullivan
Developer, PureSim Baseball

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Hammer755
You didn't see a change because you editted the wrong variable. In OOTP, it's the stadium's park effects that has the majority of the influence on batting statistics. Change the park effects to a Coors Field-like atmosphere and you'll likely get similar results as the Puresim model.

I knew that going in - but I did it anyway.

That's a stupid way to set up a baseball game.

I guess the point is that baseball stats are derived from physics, not the other way around.

[Bee]

Shaun,

If you thought that sounded like a rant, you need to visit more often.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by couriers
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Nor could you have predicted a year ago the death of the FA market in the MLB for this offseason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think that is part of the beauty of his whole point. Just because you could predict something doesn't mean that everyone else will be able to as well. This basic form of thought can be applied to any subject therefore options are always the best way to go. Most developers are intelligent enough to know that options alone will not allow their games to survive and that if it weren’t for a sound foundation those options wouldn't even exist in the first place. It makes sense for a developer to give us what they have and let us decide what to do with it.

I was just being picking out the one thing that could have been predicted. I wasn't really referring to his point or meaning applied to sim games.

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I was just being picking out the one thing that could have been predicted. I wasn't really referring to his point or meaning applied to sim games.

LOL. I wasn't trying to pick on your statement just thought it was a good one to drive the point home a little more for those that need the extra push. No offense intended.

[Hammer755]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I knew that going in - but I did it anyway.

That's a stupid way to set up a baseball game.

I guess the point is that baseball stats are derived from physics, not the other way around.

That's just your opinion, however. The game indicates explicitly how you can adjust your 'physics' via park effects. Just because you think it should be done by changing the depths of the fences and not the stadium effects doesn't mean it's done incorrectly.

In general, physics does not equal fence length. Coors Field has some of the largest dimensions of any park in baseball, yet is the best hitters park in the league. How do you account for that? Certainly not with fence length. Since there is no atmospherical conditions, park effects is probably the most logical way to manage it.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Hammer755
That's just your opinion, however. The game indicates explicitly how you can adjust your 'physics' via park effects. Just because you think it should be done by changing the depths of the fences and not the stadium effects doesn't mean it's done incorrectly.

In general, physics does not equal fence length. Coors Field has some of the largest dimensions of any park in baseball, yet is the best hitters park in the league. How do you account for that? Certainly not with fence length. Since there is no atmospherical conditions, park effects is probably the most logical way to manage it.

Except that park factors are derived from the statistics of games played. You don't know what the park factors for Camden Yards will be in 2003 - they moved the fences in and things like park factors won't be able to be calculated until after the season.

OOTP isn't a replay game - so how could something like a park factor be hard coded into the game to dictate the results? That's how you end up with silly things like players who hit .100 on balls in play and things of that sort.