[REVIEW] FPSBB '98
Phil Allen
Just some not-so-quick thoughts on the last couple baseball
games that I've bought...
First entry: Front Page Sports Baseball '98 by Sierra
I believe there are really two completely different types of computer
baseball games. There are baseball sims - that concentrate on
accuracy above all things, and baseball games - that concentrate on
actually playing the game.
FPS Baseball tries to be both, which it fails to pull off. As a
baseball game, it's a pretty successful product. As a sim, it's
light years behind other games already available.
Minimum system required: Pentium, 16M RAM, 2x CDROM, Win 95
Recommended system: Pentium-120+, 32M RAM, 4x CDROM, Win 95
Reviewed on: Pentium-120, 32M RAM, 4xCDROM, Win 95
Installation/Setup:
The installation was a breeze. The setup program automatically
detected and tested all of my hardware. No problems. The minimum
install is 18 megs, but I chose the full install, which was a hefty
135 megs.
Graphics/Sound:
The background graphics are nice, but I wish there was an option to
turn them off. The backgrounds change when you select different
options, and I found myself waiting a few seconds for the new
graphic to load. No big deal, but I could have done without it.
The graphics on the field are also nice. The ballparks all look
very accurate, and while the ballplayers are a bit on the small
side, the player animation is very realistic. The game was a
little choppy in places, but it was definitely tolerable.
The background music isn't your typical baseball fare. Unlike
FPS Baseball '96, the music is not baseball-related. Although I
usually ignore most music in computer games, I found myself humming
along with a few of the catchier tunes.
The sounds are realistic, if sparse. Unlike most other baseball
games released these days, FPS Baseball did not bother with a real
baseball announcer to call the play-by-play. There's no Mel Allen
or Ernie Harwell announcing each batter. Which is probably a good
thing, considering that no one seems to do a very good job of
syncing the announcing to what's happening on the field. Some
of the crowd noise got a bit annoying after a while, but I still
got a kick out of some of the hecklers that would occasionally
yell out such constructive criticism as, "Kiss my toucus."
Playing the game:
The on-the-field game is a step up from most of the baseball games
available today. The batter-pitcher interface is very easy to learn,
but not easy to master. Fielding was a bit harder, and a I found
myself letting the computer handle catching and throwing, to save my
team from multiple errors. Most of the fielding AI is good, but
there are a few places where it could be tweaked. For example, a
pitcher covering first base will very rarely beat an average runner
to the bag.
Also, although I experienced a few other inconsistencies in the game,
most were fixed with some tweaking of the configuration file, PB.INI.
Almost every aspect in FPSBB '98 can be changed in this file. Don't
think your players are fast enough? Change it. Don't like that the
computer's batters never swing at balls? Tweak the settings.
Overall, this is a very nice tool, that other games should consider
using. The one gripe I have about the PB.INI file is, that most of
the changes that I made should have already been made by the
programmers.
Since I'm off on a tangent anyway, I'd like to recommend the IFBL
web page, for lots of helpful files and suggestions of how to
change your PB.INI file. The web address is:
http://www.toltbbs.com/~tjkraz/ifbl/
Team and league management are also handled very nicely in this
game. Lineups and pitching rotations are easy to change. The
computer AI will automatically handle anything that you don't want
to, from teams that aren't human-managed, to proposing and
responding to trades and managing your minor leagues, disabled
lists, and amateur drafts.
Gripes:
Which brings me to the one aspect of the game that is not handled
well, the simulation-side. I'm very picky about my simulations.
I demand realism, which doesn't mean 100% accuracy. But I'd like
for players to perform somewhat realistically. And FPS '98 didn't
pass my litmus test.
The first thing I noticed about the game simulations is that they
are *slow*. Even after selecting the "Fast Sim" option in the
game, and modifying the BBPRO.INI file to use the fastsim engine,
games typically took 20-30 seconds each to complete. Which means
that a normal day of baseball, using the 28 ML teams took me five
to seven minutes to simulate. A week of games took just under an
hour, and a season of games is a several day adventure. I have
heard people with similar systems claim to have faster sim times
(in the 10 second/game range), so perhaps I'm doing something
wrong. However, even with a 10 second/game rate, it will still
take the better part of a day to simulate a season. Compare this
to Tony Larussa 3 or Strat-o-Matic baseball, where I can
simulate an entire season in under 5 minutes.
The other major problem I had with the simulation is that it's
just not very realistic. In the one ML season that I successfully
simulated, players seemingly did well or badly at random. Frank
Thomas hit .212 for the season, while Jay Buhner hit .422 -- Rusty
Greer hit 43 homers, while Albert Belle only managed 17 with similar
playing time. Jamie Moyer won 23 games, while Greg Maddux lost 18.
I've been told that ironing out the PB.INI file fixes a lot of
these inconsistencies, but none of my test-runs with smaller leagues
showed any improvement.
And, even if the PB.INI file could remedy these problems, there is
still one fundamental problem with the simulation that cannot be
fixed with a configuration file. Hitters have no statistic which
measures their ability to take a walk. Sure, walks aren't as
glamourous as a homerun. They're down-right boring most of the
time. But any simulation that ignores their importance is doing
something very wrong. In FPSBB '98, free swingers like Ivan
Rodriguez and Ozzie Guillen are just as likely to walk as patient
hitters like Tony Phillips and Rickey Henderson. And nothing
short of a patch will change that.
Bugs:
I have encountered the occasional crash in the middle of a game, or
during simulations. Sierra claims to be hard at work to fix this
problem, so hopefully a patch will be coming soon. Aside from the
gripes mentioned above, I have had no other problems.
Final verdict:
A fun baseball game. A lousy baseball simulation. I'd recommend it
to people looking for a baseball game to play against a buddy, but
if you're searching for a solid simulation engine, I suggest you
look somewhere else.
Aikman8MVP
I agree with most of your gripes, but I think you were a little harsh
saying that this is a lousy simulation. With the ability to change
literally hundreds of part of the AI, I think this is arguably the best
simulation on the market for baseball. It's not perfect by any means, but
it's pretty darn good.
Randy
Phil Allen
> I agree with most of your gripes, but I think you were a little harsh
> saying that this is a lousy simulation. With the ability to change
> literally hundreds of part of the AI,
Even though many aspects of FPSBB can be changed with the PB.INI file,
nothing you do can make certain players better at drawing walks than
others. And frankly, anyone who completely ignores walks as an
offensive ability didn't put enough work into their simulation engine.
> I think this is arguably the best
> simulation on the market for baseball.
I disagree. I find that the Tony Larussa series, Strat-o-Matic,
Dynasty League, Diamond Mind, and APBA are all far superior
simulations. Heck, even the Baseball Mogul demo has a better sim
engine than FPSBB '98, and it's primarily a management game.
> It's not perfect by any means, but
> it's pretty darn good.
I agree that it's a good baseball action game. It's just not a
very accurate baseball simulation.
Phil Allen
Robert B. Jones
Phil Allen <*pal...@flash.net> wrote in article <339B73...@flash.net>...
> > I think this is arguably the best
> > simulation on the market for baseball.
>
> I disagree. I find that the Tony Larussa series, Strat-o-Matic,
> Dynasty League, Diamond Mind, and APBA are all far superior
> simulations. Heck, even the Baseball Mogul demo has a better sim
> engine than FPSBB '98, and it's primarily a management game.
In order to make the career league functional and use physics instead of
stats, certain compromises have to be made with the sim engine. All of the
above may have better pure sim engines, but since FPS Football came out
I've always hated playing the same seasons over and over again. I haven't
played Baseball Mogul yet, but that has no on-the-field game so the sim
engine should be better. I realize everyone wants different things, but I
think it's wrong to call the engine lousy without qualification.
-Rob Jones
ro...@mindspring.com
Commissioner, IFBL, http://www.toltbbs.com/~tjkraz/ifbl/
GM/Owner, IFBL Phillies, http://www.mindspring.com/~rob47/phils/index.htm
Jon Oropeza
OTOH,
FPSBB is, to my knowledge, the only baseball game attempting to
simulate real baseball by using complicated physical computations such
as Swing angle, bat speed and position, random pitch break inlcuding
the ability to *hang* a pitch, where the ball hits the bat....
Not only that, but it is also the only one to use mental computations
such as What pitch a hitter is *looking* depending on things like what
a pitcher has thrown him before and location of the last pitch,
*What-do-I-do delays whle a fielder decides what to do, runners being
scared back to 1st a pitcher with a good move.....
Not only does FPSBB use these factors in the arcade portion, but also
in the sim portion. For this reason, FPSBB stands in a catagory all
its own when compared to 'Stat chart' simulations.
Something to think about
-Jon
Boggs / AKA Nero
> *What-do-I-do delays whle a fielder decides what to do, runners being
> scared back to 1st a pitcher with a good move.....
> Not only does FPSBB use these factors in the arcade portion, but also
> in the sim portion. For this reason, FPSBB stands in a catagory all
> its own when compared to 'Stat chart' simulations.
>
> Something to think about
>
> -Jon
--
Oh YEAH! It has Great "MENTAL" computations modeled for the players!
MENTALLY RETARDED! Like when nobody runs after overthrown balls and how
when a ball is hit to first the pitcher doesn't cover the bag! Hmm, they
must be pondering about their familly life during these "troubled"
times. I guess we tend to forget about all the problems in the poor
pitchers life. I guess he just is to mentally stressed to cover first
;=).
BTW: is it true that they only have ONE catagory for fielding
capability? If so I guess it was too hard for them to have 2 (one for
range, one for arm strength) what with all the what-do-I-do-delays and
all. I mean geez, some guys have great range and a shit arm and vice
versa. So what do they do? They prolly make him a 56 or something when
it should say 90 range and 40 arm etc. Besides taht they should have a
quick release rating on how fast the guy can get the ball out of his
glove. This is a very important stat to model especially for 2nd and
Shortstop positions (turning double plays etc.) and for outfielders
(throwing home to get a guy trying to score from 3rd on a tag fly out)
Instead of just tweaking all this stuff and making a lame game a little
better they should just start from scratch with a good foundation. I
really hope Microleague 6.0 is good or even Tony4 for that matter. After
Earl Weaver there is nothing else that comes even close to being
sufficient IMO. Forget all this 3d shit! Or at least make it secondary
in making baseball sims. I don't mean that TP98 shouldnt have it but
the sims really don't need it. When u leave something like a pitcher
covering first base out of a baseball game u really missed the boat.
Earl Weaver was a game made in 1986 if I remember corectly. It was able
to do this simple task. Why cant these guys get it right?
All opinions are mine and u can't take em away ;)
Boggs RNZAF
Boggs / AKA Nero
Ijumpajav wrote:
>
> I think you need to look at it thie way. SOM APBA and even TLS to some
> degree, duplicates science of baseball. It is always predictable within
> 3-5%. The excitement in play/managing is based on knowledge and
> familiarity with teams and players.
>
> FPSBB replicates the art/magic that Baseball held for me as a kid. Its
> job isn't duplicate the numbers. It is to replicate the experience.
>
> If you don't fondly remember sweaty August days, How to throw a 9 foot
> curve with a wiffle ball, fighting about who was going to be Mike
> Schmidt, the sound spikes made on the cold tile floor of your neighborhood
> convience store while you paced, waiting for your slushy.......YOU WON'T
> UNDERSTAND THE ATTRACTION.
>
>
I think you are selling yourself short. We can get that same feeling
looking at baseball cards or watching a game on TV or even going out
with our son and playing ball. Maybe even join a league if u want. We
CAN ask for more from a game designer! Their experience just makes me
sick. All I think of is how different it is from the real thing and
when I played. We can ask for much more!
--
Boggs RNZAF
JFGindin
It's the first to try sophisticated physics, certainly, and it's also the
first to get them completely wrong. I admire their efforts, and I hope
other companies are watching. But FPSBB is hard to recommend. The
statistical accuracy is dismal, apparently even with dedicated .ini-file
tweaking. To the reader who pointed out that the feel of the game is
important, that seems more like a response to clever marketing. I first
had that feel from a dice/paper game called Extra Innings because it
captured my imagination when I was 10 years old. If you really love
baseball, you'll get that whiffle-rush from any product you spend a lot of
time playing.
jas...@cris.com
"Robert B. Jones" <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Phil Allen <*pal...@flash.net> wrote in article <339B73...@flash.net>...
>> > I think this is arguably the best
>> > simulation on the market for baseball.
>>
>> I disagree. I find that the Tony Larussa series, Strat-o-Matic,
>> Dynasty League, Diamond Mind, and APBA are all far superior
>> simulations. Heck, even the Baseball Mogul demo has a better sim
>> engine than FPSBB '98, and it's primarily a management game.
>
> In order to make the career league functional and use physics instead of
>stats, certain compromises have to be made with the sim engine. All of the
>above may have better pure sim engines, but since FPS Football came out
>I've always hated playing the same seasons over and over again. I haven't
>played Baseball Mogul yet, but that has no on-the-field game so the sim
>engine should be better. I realize everyone wants different things, but I
>think it's wrong to call the engine lousy without qualification.
I agree with you to a extent. FPS Baseball is certainly
ambitious and when it comes to the "feel" of the game - no other
graphics based sim can beat it.
But the original poster made some real valid points. The sim
engine is pretty lousy when it comes to statistical accuracy (i.e.,
some really out-to-left-field results). Now I understand some gamers
can live with that (and enjoy the unpredictability) and that's
certainly fine, whatever floats your boat. But from my perspective,
it's a weakness. But what really kills FPS:BB for me is the fact that
it doesn't simulate a player's propensity to take a walk. That means
hitters like Barry Bonds, Frank Thomas, Gary Sheffield and Mark
McGwire lose a signifigant amount of their offensive value because
they are on equal ground with hitters like Ozzie Guillen and Joe
Carter when it comes to taking walks. Sacrilege from my point of view.
I appreciate what FPS:BB is attempting to do - it does it
better than any other game on the market right now. And the
customability of the pb.ini is a big step in the right direction
(other baseball sims should follow their lead). But the original Earl
Weaver Baseball featured a physics based engine and had better stats
to boot.
Jason
Aaron Liebling
Boggs / AKA Nero wrote:
> > *What-do-I-do delays whle a fielder decides what to do, runners
> being
> > scared back to 1st a pitcher with a good move.....
> > Not only does FPSBB use these factors in the arcade portion, but
> also
> > in the sim portion. For this reason, FPSBB stands in a catagory all
> > its own when compared to 'Stat chart' simulations.
> >
> > Something to think about
> >
> > -Jon
>
> --
>
> BTW: is it true that they only have ONE catagory for fielding
> capability? If so I guess it was too hard for them to have 2 (one for
> range, one for arm strength) what with all the what-do-I-do-delays and
>
>
Um, I won't comment on most of the other stuff, but they definitely have
two fielding categories (actually 3), FA which is how often you'll make
an error, AS (arm strength) how well you throw the ball, and SP (speed)
how quickly you'll get to the ball if it's not right near you.
> all. I mean geez, some guys have great range and a shit arm and vice
> versa. So what do they do? They prolly make him a 56 or something when
>
> it should say 90 range and 40 arm etc. Besides taht they should have
> a
> quick release rating on how fast the guy can get the ball out of his
> glove. This is a very important stat to model especially for 2nd and
> Shortstop positions (turning double plays etc.) and for outfielders
> (throwing home to get a guy trying to score from 3rd on a tag fly out)
>
>
See above.
Jon Oropeza
On 10 Jun 1997 02:56:31 GMT, jfgi...@aol.com (JFGindin) wrote:
If you really love
>baseball, you'll get that whiffle-rush from any product you spend a lot of
>time playing.
The game that first got me into PC sports games was the original Tony
Larussa. For their time, the graphics were outstanding. Even though
you could pay extra for the current players, I think I had the most
fun with those All-time great teams. One of the neatest (has anyone
else tried this?) features was the simultanious games going on;
between innings you glanced at the scoreboard to see how your division
rivals were doing.
-Jon
Phil Allen
Robert B. Jones wrote:
> In order to make the career league functional and use physics instead of
> stats, certain compromises have to be made with the sim engine. All of the
> above may have better pure sim engines, but since FPS Football came out
> I've always hated playing the same seasons over and over again. I haven't
> played Baseball Mogul yet, but that has no on-the-field game so the sim
> engine should be better. I realize everyone wants different things, but I
> think it's wrong to call the engine lousy without qualification.
I thought that I'd done a pretty good job qualifying in my original
post, but I'll go into a bit more detail.
The programmers have tried a different way of trying to simulate
baseball. Rather than attempt to simulate player performance, they
have chosen to simulate baseball physics. The velocity, angle, and
wind resistance of a batted ball, etc. I'm all for trying new
things, and I'm glad to see that someone is trying something
different than the status quo.
However, Sierra seems to have disregarded a lot of details that
determine player performance in their quest for perfect baseball
physics. Last night, I finished up another simulated season
(this one AL-only, for speed's sake) to see if I may have had
one really bad season. But the stats just didn't add up. Mike
Mussina and Kevin Appier combined for a 12-26 record with a hefty
8.62 ERA (w/ no injuries, BTW), while Darren Oliver won the Cy
Young (which, as a Rangers' fan, I'd love to see...but as a
Rangers' fan, I realize is about as likely as the Cubs winning
the Series). I just don't see how you can look at final numbers
like that and say that FPSBB is an accurate simulation. Not
with a straight face, anyway.
I read a book last year dealing with the statistical modeling
that's done to predict the weather. In the book, there's a
story about a grad student that spent seven years writing a very
detailed program involving weather patterns and storm formations.
In fact, it was possibly the most detailed program of its kind.
Unfortunately for the grad student, it didn't do a very good job
of predicting the weather, regardless of how detailed it was.
Front Page Sports Baseball reminds me of that story. Regardless
of how detailed the physics model is, it just doesn't do a very
good job of simulating player performance.
I guess what it comes down to is, different strokes for different
folks. I said in my initial review that I thought that this was
a fun game. If I was interested in setting up a head-to-head
season of action games against a bunch of my buddies, this is
probably the game I'd pick. However, in my opinion, if you're
looking for a solid baseball simulation, this isn't it. The
physics may be simulated perfectly, but the player performance
isn't.
Regards,
Phil
Boggs / AKA Nero
> I guess what it comes down to is, different strokes for different
> folks. I said in my initial review that I thought that this was
> a fun game. If I was interested in setting up a head-to-head
> season of action games against a bunch of my buddies, this is
> probably the game I'd pick. However, in my opinion, if you're
> looking for a solid baseball simulation, this isn't it. The
> physics may be simulated perfectly, but the player performance
> isn't.
>
> Regards,
>
> Phil
I cannot agree more except that I think this game is NOT fun to play!
Baseball, believe it or not, is a game of matchups and SINGLE PLAYER
performance (ie batter vs. pitcher). Yes, defense is a team effort but
even that could be broken down into single performances (diving play, or
great throw).
When an approach uses physics modeling it must be even more detailed
than this engine claims to be to produce valid results. You would need
to analyse every batters swing and register how flat their swing is
(producing more ground balls and line drives) and even that changes with
every swing the player makes (people are imperfect). Every player would
need a specific swing profile that was rated by swing angle, swing
speed, swing inertia, and giving each player a swing contact rating to
boot.
Besides this u would need further profiles of how long the swing is,
when the batter decides to swing (identifying that it is a good pitch to
swing at) causing either a pull, up the middle or opposite field hit.
Even further a profile could decide whether a batter would decide to
pull an outside pitch (producing a weak grounder) or going opposite
field (producing a better chance to get a hit. Obviously the players
with level swings will produce more singles (and prolly higher avg.)
because they are not popping out as much as the higher angled swingers
(unless they have enough inertia to get it out of the ballpark). But
then again, some high angled hitters (Sheffield) still hit well because
they have great bat speed and timing even without sound swing
fundimentals (another example would be Eric Davis, remember him:). These
types of hitters don't tend to last as long as fundimentally good
hitters because thru time they lose their tremendous speed and then
their timing (also they get into slumps easier when they lose their
timing). Good fundimental hitters like Gwynn for example will last
longer since they have a flatter swing producing hits even tho they lose
some bat speed because they have a larger window (hit zone) to hit in.
What I mean is their bat is in the "hit zone" for a longer period of
time. Example: Gwynn's bat is in the hit zone for .04 seconds while
Davis for only .02 seconds. So even if Gwynn's timing is a little off
he has a greater chance of hitting the ball square. Now add in the fact
that he got a curve ball or sinker and the model becomes even more
complicated to determine the angle of the flight of the ball.
I am probably not even covering even more aspects of batting that need
to be included in a successful model. Then u have pitching which is a
whole other story :).
Now, are u telling me that FPS98 models this? I dont think any
Baseball sim is capable of performing the kind of physics modeling
(maybe I am wrong but certainly none do at this time) needed to produce
acurate statistics over a season. Each player's swing (being unique)
would have to be studied intensly and accurately. That is why simming is
a better solution until this kind of physics model can be performed. A
"half ass" simplified attempt is not good enough to reproduce reliable
statistics (ie Buhner gets triple crown with a .40something BA and 70
some odd homers). We all know this is higly unlikely. The first analogy
that comes to mind making a flight sim without modeling gravity. Sure,
u can model the 24,000 pounds of thrust the Jet engine provides but
without modeling gravity it is not a realistic physics model. It may
seem more complex than the other sim that just notes what top speeds are
at certain alts and acceleration rates but without modeling gravity u
just get the incomplete model of modeling 24,000 pnds of thrust which
will produce an inacurate flight model and speed although using a
physics model unlike the more accurate less complex sim. Of course this
is very simplified!
So what I am saying is just cos they use "physics modeling" doesn't
mean it is better. In some incomplete cases it can mean it is worse and
innacurate. Now if they can ACCURATELY model physics then I may opt for
the physics model but until then give me a sim model.
FPS98 might use a more earthy realism approach but they are not
modeling enough variables to give us a reliable model of what real life
gives us. The simulation approach can however do this and in my opinion
is better at this point and time. (APBA DM etc).
All opinions are mine and u can't have them~! TM :)
--
Boggs RNZAF
Ian Wu
Phil Allen wrote:
>
> I read a book last year dealing with the statistical modeling
> that's done to predict the weather. In the book, there's a
> story about a grad student that spent seven years writing a very
> detailed program involving weather patterns and storm formations.
> In fact, it was possibly the most detailed program of its kind.
> Unfortunately for the grad student, it didn't do a very good job
> of predicting the weather, regardless of how detailed it was.
>
> Front Page Sports Baseball reminds me of that story. Regardless
> good job of simulating player performance.
>
> I guess what it comes down to is, different strokes for different
> folks. I said in my initial review that I thought that this was
> a fun game. If I was interested in setting up a head-to-head
> season of action games against a bunch of my buddies, this is
> probably the game I'd pick. However, in my opinion, if you're
> looking for a solid baseball simulation, this isn't it. The
> physics may be simulated perfectly, but the player performance
> isn't.
>
I agree with most of what you said. However, I think the problem with
the FPSBB series is still in some choices made in the design, not that
they choose to use a physics model.
The programmers choose to use CH and PH to simulate a player's hitting
ability, with CH measuring OBP and PH measuring SLG. The problems with
this approach are numerous, here is a few:
1) The fast players have a huge edge, they can streach singles into
doubles and ground outs into singles. They end up with much higher
OBP and SLG than their CH and PH ratings would indicate.
(What they failed to realize is that a players overall OBP and SLG
already incorporated their speed and other ratings )
2) There is no way to distinguish a hitter who never walks but hits
for high average from a player who hits for low average but walks a lot
Why didn't the design team take the same approach as the FPSFootball
series. Instead of the idiotic monthly ratings(which should really be
taken care of by the physics of temperature changes and so forth) they
should have had ratings like the following:
Reflex (How fast the batter reacts to a pitch)
Judgement (How accurate is the batter assessment of the pitch)
Hand Eye Coord (How well the batter's hands follow his instructions
Bat quickness (How quickly can the batter bring the bat into the
strike zone. Bad quickness rating can make a hitter
vulnerable to good fastballs)
Strength (How hard he hits the ball)
Discipline (How often will he swing at bad pitches?)
Intelligence (How good is the hitter at guessing the next pitch?)
Patience (Hit rating means player will wait for good pitch, low
rating means player will swing at any pitch he thinks
is a strike)
With these ratings, you can create any type of hitter. From free
swinging Rob Deer to the selective Tony Phillips. You can ever simulate
good breaking ball hitters and good fastball hitters.
For pitchers, they should have two ratings for every pitch:
rating one would be the pitcher's control of that pitch, rating two
would be how well that pitch does what ever it's supposed to do. (For
example, fastball rating would measure how fast it is, curveball rating
would measure how much it curves, sinker rating would measure how much
it sinks and knuckleball rating would measure how much it knuckles)
Is there a way I can send this to sierra and maybe they can implement
this on their next version?
Ian Wu
JoeBrandy
In article <339CDB...@usa.net>, Boggs / AKA Nero <nero....@usa.net>
writes:
>BTW: is it true that they only have ONE catagory for fielding
>capability?
For what its worth, there is a rating for fielding (called FA) and arm
strength
(called AS), although there was some debate over how much AS actually
influenced the play in BBPro96. There are a lot more plays at the plate
in 98, so perhaps that has been fixed.
Also for what its worth, I loved Earl Weaver, with the ability to custom
design
the ball park the best part. I once played a team with all speed an no
power
in an artificial turf park with 400 ft down the lines and 20ft walls all
around.
I got clobbered in my league, but it was a fun try.
Joe Bair
steve b./cgs+
In article <339DE4...@flash.net>, pal...@flash.net says...
> one really bad season. But the stats just didn't add up. Mike
> Mussina and Kevin Appier combined for a 12-26 record with a hefty
> 8.62 ERA (w/ no injuries, BTW), while Darren Oliver won the Cy
> Young (which, as a Rangers' fan, I'd love to see...but as a
> Rangers' fan, I realize is about as likely as the Cubs winning
> the Series). I just don't see how you can look at final numbers
> like that and say that FPSBB is an accurate simulation. Not
> with a straight face, anyway.
I've always ditched the MLB leagues and used fake names (I have a league
from FPS:94 for this purpose). This does two things: first, it eliminates
all of my preconceived notions of player performance, and second it makes
the game far more challenging because now I have to scout my opposition,
rather than just use my real-life knowledge of the teams.
--
--------------------------------
steve bauman - sba...@cdmag.com
editor - computer games strategy plus - www.cdmag.com
2 millet st. unit 2 - richmond, vt 05477 - 802.434.3060 x628
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Pelesky
Boggs / AKA Nero wrote:
>
> > *What-do-I-do delays whle a fielder decides what to do, runners being
> > scared back to 1st a pitcher with a good move.....
> > Not only does FPSBB use these factors in the arcade portion, but also
> > in the sim portion. For this reason, FPSBB stands in a catagory all
> > its own when compared to 'Stat chart' simulations.
> >
> > Something to think about
> >
> > -Jon
>
> --
>
> MENTALLY RETARDED! Like when nobody runs after overthrown balls and how
> when a ball is hit to first the pitcher doesn't cover the bag! Hmm, they
> must be pondering about their familly life during these "troubled"
> times. I guess we tend to forget about all the problems in the poor
> pitchers life. I guess he just is to mentally stressed to cover first
> ;=).
>
> range, one for arm strength) what with all the what-do-I-do-delays and
> versa. So what do they do? They prolly make him a 56 or something when
> it should say 90 range and 40 arm etc. Besides taht they should have a
> quick release rating on how fast the guy can get the ball out of his
> glove. This is a very important stat to model especially for 2nd and
> Shortstop positions (turning double plays etc.) and for outfielders
> (throwing home to get a guy trying to score from 3rd on a tag fly out)
>
> better they should just start from scratch with a good foundation. I
> really hope Microleague 6.0 is good or even Tony4 for that matter. After
> Earl Weaver there is nothing else that comes even close to being
> sufficient IMO. Forget all this 3d shit! Or at least make it secondary
> in making baseball sims. I don't mean that TP98 shouldnt have it but
> the sims really don't need it. When u leave something like a pitcher
> covering first base out of a baseball game u really missed the boat.
> Earl Weaver was a game made in 1986 if I remember corectly. It was able
> to do this simple task. Why cant these guys get it right?
>
> All opinions are mine and u can't take em away ;)
>
> Boggs RNZAF
You forgot this situation. Runner on first, batter hits a double.
Outfielder throws to second and the batter is safe, might be a play at
the plate, however when bending to tag the batter, the second baseman
pulls his back out and stays in the tagging position.
CP