Low Batting Averages in sims?

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by BlueJayPower

One of those guys 1) I did it with the SCEA latest roster update, because SCEA are the ones making MONEY off the game. I didn't spend 60 bucks on a game to spend hours upon hours editing attributes, which I had to for last year's game. 2) Get educated? Anyone with even a grain of baseball knowledge knows that .308 would never come close to a batting title. Not the way the game's being played today. So even a "one off" that egregious should never occur. 3) It's not just a "one off". I remember last year this happened all the time. It's the main reason I mostly play '13, because I spent a whole whack of time editing the rosters (it has to be done across the board). I was hoping I wouldn't have to do that this game. I bought this game to play it, not recreate a part of it. 4) Sim stats matter to some (a lot) of people. Maybe not to you. It's as much to do with REALISM as anything. People want realism in 2014. Who are you to tell them they're wrong? What if David Ortiz was playing center field and stealing 40 bases? What if David Price had an 89 mph fastball? What if the home run title was won with 25 bombs? Would you be ok with that? If you spent 60 bucks on the game would you not complain about that? Almost equally as fun as gunning for the pennant in franchise mode is going for the batting title, MVP, Cy Young, etc. Especially if you're team falls out of the race relatively early. 5) I'm going to sim ten seasons and post the results. It's not just the batting averages. It's the low walk totals that have plagued this game for years as well, coupled with the low K/9 totals for relievers (Chapman has 60 in 29.2 innings this year; you can't do that in this game) and the high K totals for batters with 99 plate vision (over 100 K way too often). But it's the batting averages that obviously stand out.

No one was talking about the SCEA rosters. I was responding to people making false accusations about rosters created specifically by OS members and having little/no/inadequate data to back it up. I know said claims are false (one post said .280 was the highest BA) because I actually tested it myself. Multiple times. It's simply not true that only one guy would bat over .300 or that nobody would. Not in any roster set I've used anyway.

OS members work on rosters completely for free as a hobby for the benefit of the community whereas SCEA makes money off the endeavor, so it's fair to blast SCEA. I'm just not a fan of people who sit back in the weeds and do nothing to help with roster creation who then proceed to whine like 2 year olds over features in roster sets they have no right to feel entitled to anyway (or could simply edit to their own liking as you did with '13 rather than complaining). I blame the millennials.

Also, there's no need to be so sanctimonious over 60 dollars. Certainly, you are entitled to expect adequate goods and services when you buy a product, but the sentiment that paying 3 $20 bills gives one the right to expect the sun and the moon is horribly ridiculous. Saying the game is not worthy of the price simply because there aren't exactly as many guys hitting at the exact averages you want in simmed games would be like complaining over a gallon of milk because the label on it is baby blue and you preferred the label to be 2 shades darker blue. It's insane how mad and hyperbolic that people get over minor stuff.

Finally, Ortiz playing center is an apple and a batting title being won in a single, isolated simulation with a .308 average (with god knows what adjustments/tweaks to attributes) is an orange. Best not to compare them when discussing realism.

[BlueJayPower]

1) You may want to read that .280 post again. Nowhere in there did the guy mention any specific roster. I did, but it was the SCEA roster I complained about.

2) No one was being either sanctimonious nor was anyone expecting the sun and the moon. Matter of fact we were just expecting to get what we paid for. I paid for a game that works as it is intended. I don't feel that's what I got. What I got was a project for which this year I do t have the time. In fact last year it took months to fix the problem. It's not the cost of the product that matters to the consumer. It's the cost of the product relative to what the expectation of that product is. If you spent $25 on a medium rare steak and they burnt it would you still eat it or send it back?

3) Actually your comparison comes absolutely nowhere near to this situation. Complaining about the label on a gallon of milk would be akin to me complaining about the cover player's jersey or hat color, or the font the company used for the letters. See in your scenario there's nothing wrong with the actual product. In mine there is.

4) Again, there were no tweaks, adjustments to the roster. Allow me to spell it out for you:

I USED THE LATEST SCEA LIVE ROSTERS. READING IS F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L.

5) It's not a one off. Last year's SCEA rosters yielded these results well over three quarters of the time. I saw David Wright win the title at .304, Prince Fielder at .308, and many many others below .310 that I can't remember off the top of my head. But again, I'll sim the seasons I said I would to satisfy your skepticism. Matter of fact, you can do it to.

6) It may be a small thing or hyperbole to you, but it's a major annoyance others. If it's a one in a thousand situation, I get it. Anything less is unacceptable. And in this case it happens a lot.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by BlueJayPower

1) You may want to read that .280 post again. Nowhere in there did the guy mention any specific roster. I did, but it was the SCEA roster I complained about. I wasn't responding to your post about SCEA rosters. If you read other posts in this thread, they mention OS-created rosters. I believe I've been clear in making that distinction. Whether or not the .280 post actually said the words "non-SCEA rosters" it was implied. The OP is about rosters "around here." Doesn't take a brain surgeon to connect the dots that OS rosters are what he's referring to. 2) No one was being either sanctimonious nor was anyone expecting the sun and the moon. Matter of fact we were just expecting to get what we paid for. I paid for a game that works as it is intended. I don't feel that's what I got. What I got was a project for which this year I do t have the time. In fact last year it took months to fix the problem. It's not the cost of the product that matters to the consumer. It's the cost of the product relative to what the expectation of that product is. If you spent $25 on a medium rare steak and they burnt it would you still eat it or send it back? You should look up what sanctimonious means. You may want to look into exaggeration while you're at it. You paid for a game that can be played. Again, this particular critique does not make it unplayable in the least. 3) Actually your comparison comes absolutely nowhere near to this situation. Complaining about the label on a gallon of milk would be akin to me complaining about the cover player's jersey or hat color, or the font the company used for the letters. See in your scenario there's nothing wrong with the actual product. In mine there is. You are missing the point. Think minor vs major. Don't be the guy that takes everything literally. 4) Again, there were no tweaks, adjustments to the roster. Allow me to spell it out for you: I USED THE LATEST SCEA LIVE ROSTERS. READING IS F-U-N-D-A-M-E-N-T-A-L. Again, who says that my original post was even intended for you? Where did I mention SCEA rosters rather than OS-created rosters being the issue? 5) It's not a one off. Last year's SCEA rosters yielded these results well over three quarters of the time. I saw David Wright win the title at .304, Prince Fielder at .308, and many many others below .310 that I can't remember off the top of my head. But again, I'll sim the seasons I said I would to satisfy your skepticism. Matter of fact, you can do it to. No, I'm good thanks. 6) It may be a small thing or hyperbole to you, but it's a major annoyance others. If it's a one in a thousand situation, I get it. Anything less is unacceptable. And in this case it happens a lot. Then fix it or don't play. No need turning all blue in the face over it. If the sim engine was so soulcrushing for you with '13, maybe you should've held off on buying '14 to show your protest? I'm guessing you actually do like the game and that you actually do get your money's worth with it or you wouldn't be wasting your time editing and messing around on the website.

have a nice day

[BlueJayPower]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

have a nice day

I don't have the time nor patience to debate with you over this topic, and likely any for that matter. Your analogies, reasoning and basic level of comprehension is beyond ridiculous. It's like arguing with a two year old.

Slap in the face to the whole "science of statistics". Wow what? Yet I'm being sanctimonious. Sufferin' succotash!!!

[Mizzou24]

I don't think anyone was trying to bash hybrid.. It's not hybrids fault.. It's a fault in the game.. It's not going to be perfect.. U can only make the engine work sub par close to real life.. What needs to be done in the future is evaluation of how their simulated stats are producing and they need to fix it to where it replicates real seasons.. I've got it to where I'm getting 17-25 .300 hitters but will it continue to produce that down the road?? No idea because once a guys k/9 gets high they over inflate with strike outs.. If h/9 gets too high same things happen.. I really love this game but a little bit of attention to detail to the engine and it would have made the game that much better. However most sports games seem to have this problem. I dunno why but the best we can do is try to make it play out more realistic and try to enjoy the game and remember it is just a game at the end of the day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by Mizzou24

I don't think anyone was trying to bash hybrid.. It's not hybrids fault.. It's a fault in the game.. It's not going to be perfect.. U can only make the engine work sub par close to real life.. What needs to be done in the future is evaluation of how their simulated stats are producing and they need to fix it to where it replicates real seasons.. I've got it to where I'm getting 17-25 .300 hitters but will it continue to produce that down the road?? No idea because once a guys k/9 gets high they over inflate with strike outs.. If h/9 gets too high same things happen.. I really love this game but a little bit of attention to detail to the engine and it would have made the game that much better. However most sports games seem to have this problem. I dunno why but the best we can do is try to make it play out more realistic and try to enjoy the game and remember it is just a game at the end of the day. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with you that it will never be perfect. However, I think the frustration people are having is more related to them not having the patience or aptitude in science/statistics/math to do a decent job of roster editing. I see a lot of people running ONE sim and making these vast conclusions about how everything sucks, but geez, man, really? Also people are changing a bunch of attributes all at once without understanding what each individual change results in. Not to mention the folks who change attributes on a handful of players and expect that to have some noticeable effect on league-wide stats.

The demographic on OS is obviously skewed toward high schoolers and young college kids (it is a video game site after all), so some of these people are trying to change a system they lack the education/patience to properly understand. I believe that is a better explanation than just the sim engine sucks and there's nothing we can do about it. The sim engine does respond to attribute changes pretty well, and although we can't replicate real life, we can get pretty darn close.

[Mizzou24]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

I agree with you that it will never be perfect. However, I think the frustration people are having is more related to them not having the patience or aptitude in science/statistics/math to do a decent job of roster editing. I see a lot of people running ONE sim and making these vast conclusions about how everything sucks, but geez, man, really? Also people are changing a bunch of attributes all at once without understanding what each individual change results in. Not to mention the folks who change attributes on a handful of players and expect that to have some noticeable effect on league-wide stats. The demographic on OS is obviously skewed toward high schoolers and young college kids (it is a video game site after all), so some of these people are trying to change a system they lack the education/patience to properly understand. I believe that is a better explanation than just the sim engine sucks and there's nothing we can do about it. The sim engine does respond to attribute changes pretty well, and although we can't replicate real life, we can get pretty darn close.

Or the sim engine could be tuned to produce realistic stats.. Yes the sim engine responds but it should be able to fluctuate and respond no matter where the ratings may be.. I for one am not in high school nor college. Nor did I edit a few players and say the sim engine sucks.. I've been editing players and reworking a lot more than just ratings.. I would say I've done my fair share of studying and the sim engine does need tuned. I don't mind that I have to go above and beyond to produce a realistic game.. It's just it could be a lot easier on us..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mizzou24]

But I do agree people shouldn't just go to editing stuff when they have no idea what it does.. And yes when u change one thing to fix the stats u must balance that to every player or it's pointless.. I expected to have my roster out by early July but a roster isn't something that is a simple day or two process.. It's a lot of work.. And a lot of studying and figuring out mathematical calculations that go with the views of what u think will produce realistic stats while keeping players true to their real life counterpart.. It's no walk in the park that's for sure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk