Puresim Question (for those who have it)

[mgadfly]

When I play OOTP I always turn the player ratings to "none" and put the talent ratings on the lowest (least accurate) setting possible. This makes the player's statistics the primary way of judging talent. OOTP also allows me to change the computer evaluation of players so that they are judging talent based on stats (primarily) as well.

Does Puresim allow this at all?

From what I recall players are rated on a 1-100 scale in abilities and there is not a way to turn the ratings off or to change the way the AI evaluates talent. Is it possible to make ALL scouts (are there still scouts in puresim) so innacurate as well as get the computer GMs to use the stats that I can achieve the same result?

Basically, I hate knowing that my "87" hitter is better than my "79" hitter know matter how well they are doing on the field. I want to have to guess whether the "79" hitter has been getting lucky, or whether he actually is a better hitter.

Thanks for any help.





ALSO, for those who play it, do you like the free agent signing portion of the game?

[lynchjm24]

No the ratings are absolute. However, there is a lot of variation over seasons. I would like to see scouting return to the game or at least the ability to go to 2-8 or something like that - so there isn't the same level of differentiation.

I don't mind the free agent portion of the game. I wish it were easier to find players I want to bid on and I wish I could delete players so that the pool is smaller. I don't have a huge issue with what some people say is a lack of a chance to counter-bid. That's real business life, you don't always get a last look in the real world.

[JimboJ]

I think having player ratings is more accurate anyway. I believe a real life GM who needs to evaluate a hundred players in his own organization, several hundred players in the league, and thousands of players in high school and college, needs to have his scouting dept. develop some type of rating system for those players.

Using stats doesn't always work, because they are too dependant on what level of competition the player goes up against. Is a player hitting .500 in college because he is that good, or because he plays against teams that are not that good?

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by JimboJ

I think having player ratings is more accurate anyway. I believe a real life GM who needs to evaluate a hundred players in his own organization, several hundred players in the league, and thousands of players in high school and college, needs to have his scouting dept. develop some type of rating system for those players.

Using stats doesn't always work, because they are too dependant on what level of competition the player goes up against. Is a player hitting .500 in college because he is that good, or because he plays against teams that are not that good?

I don't mind having scouted ratings per se, but in all my years of sports I've never seen someone look at a guy and say, "well he's a 73 out of 100 in making contact, while that guy over there, probably more like a 74. I'd play him."

Scouting reports usually say he's a 4 on a scale of 2 to 8. Leaving it to the manager to determine whether to play him or the other "4." Additionally, if the game just gave me the stats I could look at what level of competition he was playing against and say he's about an "X". So I'd still have a "scouting" report, but it'd be my own.

Real coaches never know if they have their "best" line up in. They are just making educated guesses. Some games take that part completely away by telling us who is actually better.

[gstelmack]

But real coaches also have game film, practice time, and the like to see what a player is good at and not good at. Our feedback in the game is pretty minimal on this stuff, so I view the stats as a way to compensate.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But real coaches also have game film, practice time, and the like to see what a player is good at and not good at. Our feedback in the game is pretty minimal on this stuff, so I view the stats as a way to compensate.

If you mean ratings as a way to compensate I'd agree only if they give us what a real coach gets by being able to view game film, practice time, and the like... a general idea of how good a player is. No matter how much game film the best coaches in a sport watch, they are not going to be able to tell you that player X is a 74 and player Y is a 73. I want whatever rating system is in a game to give me what a coach might get, without giving me what is impossible for a coach to know.

For example, I went an entire season as a basketball coach starting a player at SF two seasons ago. From my perspective on practice I thought he was the best player I had available. I thought he was a very good athlete, I knew he was fast, I knew he could jump well. I knew that he was a poor shot, but I had other scorers. Then the assistant coach suggested we go with a different player who I would say could jump well, was fast, and an okay athlete who could shoot well, but was three or four inches shorter. I gave it a shot and the new player made a huge impact. If I'd known exactly how good he was, and how well he'd have played, I would have always started him. In a lot of text games the answer to not having game tape is to just give us information that real coaches don't have.

In a baseball game I'd like to have that level of unpredictability, where I had to feel out (by actually looking at the statistics) who is actully on the top end of being a "good" hitter and who is actually closer to being average than good. It might just be me, but that is what I'm looking for and so far OOTP is the only one that really offers it.

[JimboJ]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I don't mind having scouted ratings per se, but in all my years of sports I've never seen someone look at a guy and say, "well he's a 73 out of 100 in making contact, while that guy over there, probably more like a 74. I'd play him."

But if you have several scouts each rate a player on a scale from 1 to 10, and you take the average of all the scouts, you could end up with a rating of 7.4 out of 10, which is the same as 74 out of 100. As long as the ratings aren't an absolute predictor of performance, and there is room for some variablility built in, then I think they are a good idea.

[mgadfly]

But my understanding is that is not how Puresim's ratings work. I think if you have a 74 in Puresim he is better than a 73. As with a 74 in your scenario really isn't a 74, it is a generalized idea about how good a player is. Is the player really an 82 like the top scout said, or a 67 like the bottom scout? Or is he really the average of the ten scouts? That leaves some guess work for the coach, but if a 74 is always better, that eliminates all guess work.