MLB 09' Game Engine???

[SoxFan01605]

Quote: Originally Posted by baa7

Exactly. I noticed at least 3 pre-set patterns. Lose the first 2-3 games and my team would finish the year 60-100 or something that extreme. Win 2 or 3 out of the first 4 and my team would finish with a respectable record: 85-75. Win the first 3-4 games and my team would finish the year 100-60. Again, if someone sims a lot of their games, they might want to take a look at this. And like you, I assume these pre-set patterns with the sim engine aren't tied to the outcome of user games. But who knows. EDIT: Give or take (give, mostly) a couple of games with those win-loss totals.

Well baa, I'm thinking more in terms of the first few weeks, rather than the first few games.

I'm simply talking general patterns in early performance that appear (at least superficially) to correlate to how they finished. I don't know that I could predict with any certainty...it just seems to trend certain ways.

My assumption is it's more probability than simply a list of presets (meaning a team would have to first be capable, ratings wise, to fall into whatever range of wins at a given %). As I said, without knowing anything about the programming (or programming at all, for that matter..lol) it's just something I muse on during my little sim sessions.

Quote: Originally Posted by countryboy

Again, they may be there, but in my humble opinion, I haven't seen anything that would suggest that after playing thru 2 1/2 years. Maybe its because its not a "fresh" franchise I'm starting, I don't know. Just seems to me to be all the variables of baseball at work.

I think we're talking about to different things CB. I was hesitant to mention it for fear it would be picked up on and stray from the OP's intended discussion...lol

The big difference here is the preconditions, I think. Meaning, when I sim to test something (like my re-ratings or roster moves, for example) I make sure there are no outside influences at-play to mess with numbers since I'm trying to get a baseline range that I'm happy with.

This ensures that variables such as injuries, trades, and any other roster moves, etc are left out of the equation and it's only number crunching at play. That was my point. I should be picking up on patterns, as I'm not playing the game as intended as much as chasing numbers.

In your case, you are talking about a standard franchise ( I assume) in which injuries, or at least roster moves are at play. I couldn't speak to that, as I never test multiple runs in that manner.

I would venture a guess that there would be more variance and less sense of conformity in results in that case...as there should be.

In my experience, I've never noticed it when playing my franchise, as I'm playing the bulk of my games, playing it like a baseball game (transactions, etc...as opposed to simple number crunching), and frankly, just not paying attention...lol. As I mentioned to baa, it's something I've mulled over while endlessly simming when I first get the game.

[countryboy]

my bad Sox. I see what you're saying now.

Yeah, I'm talking about a standard franchise where everything is at play. I play roughly 80% of my games now.

[milton.raleigh]

All points well made. The fly in the ointment is that when David Ortiz started hitting home runs again he started hitting them at the same rate that he always has hit them. He didn't go into catchup mode and regress to his mean like an avalanche.

[thdudeabides]

Quote: Originally Posted by SoxFan01605

8 walks in one inning (and all indications from various sources are Mr. Gray had 7 consecutive during that inning) On sixteen straight pitches? I doubt it. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recb..._records.shtml For Hit Batsmen: Hard to find anywhere that lists a 2 inning sample...so I hope you'll accept 3 in 1 inning. As you can see, the record for a game is 6! Some of those were undoubtably intentionally hit batters. I sure the CPU pitchers in this game are not programed to purposly throw at batters. http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_hbp.shtml Like baa7 mentioned earlier (and to stick up for him a bit, despite his propensity to imply intimate "Show" programming knowledge...lol...he makes some solid points at times) I've felt like there have been recognizable patterns in simming. Now, I have no idea what formula is used to determine the probability of outcomes in simmed games, but I'd imagine something more than mere random would have to be at play...which makes it fair to assume that it would be possible to pick up on patterns or at least feel like you are. I have no problem with this, as it would indicate something beyond mere random chance determines simmed outcomes...which is a plus, IMO.

"The Invisible Hand of Sim". I think that is exactly what we are "seeing" sometimes, when these patterns emerge. Its far from a bad thing, its necessary for the game meet its end as a Sim, but the path to that end, or the computer taking control from the user to effect an outcome, sometimes just becomes easily recognized.

[Woodweaver]

Quote: Originally Posted by thdudeabides

Um, no. Fanboys. Making simple observations about strange instances that happen in a video game, is not bashing the game. Not to burst your bubble, but this is not real baseball.

What?

[eyeamg0dly]

ive simmed alot too and i dont see any kind of pattern. latest one with the padres. i lost the first 11 games of the season, then turn around and finished 3 games back from winning the division. the next season with them i started 10-11 and completely fell apart in in august and finished next to last in the division and 10 games out of it. season 3 i started out on fire at 12-2, held best record till august then slumped again, but then turned it around in september to win the division and then lost first round to the cards.

i sim alot because im still learning to manage teams and rosters. tbh i rather build teams then play them.

[bigal093]

just because someone posts a discussions, some people turn it into a nasty argument, which i dont think the OP was trying to do.

[mmorg]

Quote: Originally Posted by ChiefsRox10

I'm drawing a conclusion that when starting a franchise you get different outcomes dependant on which game engine it assigns. Am I crazy or has anyone else noticed this? I have restarted my franchise numerous times and noticed that in some I start, doubles are fairly easy to come by while home runs are not and vice vera. Also a noticeable difference in the ability to strikeout the CPU. Some feedback would be greatly appriciated. Am I crazy or is this actually happening??? 7-17: I'm not saying that outcomes are predetermined in any way. I am saying that you will experience a different type of game in each franchise using the same sliders, setting, and approach.

So you are saying every game is different? Holy crapola!