What is best computer simulation game?
Caminante1
Reality in baseball is depressing me, so I am thinking of returning to
fantasy baseball. I am looking for the best computer baseball game. I
used to play the Pursue the Pennant board game. I'd like a game just like
that on a computer. Graphics are unimportant to me. I need a game that
will quickly play and manage games reasonably well. A game that will keep
track of all the statistics. Please give me your recomendations. I have
Windows 95 and a fast computer.
THanks :)
Michael Cieslinski
In article <19970831043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
camin...@aol.com (Caminante1) wrote:
Your ship has come in. DYNASTY League Baseball is exactly what you are
looking for. The following review appeared in the Milwaukee Journal on
June 19, 1997. More information can be found at http://www.designdepot.com
The following is an excerpt from Michael Baumanšs column in the Milwaukee
Journal:
This Dynasty has everything, and then some
June 19, 1997 Michael Bauman Milwaukee Journal
For the full column visit:
http://www.onwis.com/sports/brew/thu/baum61997.stm
For those of us who can never stop replaying the 1982 World Series,
there may be a solution: Dynasty League Baseball.
In the spirit of interleague play, we sat down recently with the creator
of this game, Michael Cieslinski, formerly of Brookfield. Cieslinski has
relocated to
Florida, undoubtedly in search of better baseball weather, but during a
recent visit he was happy to preside over a rematch between the '82
Brewers and Cardinals.
Cieslinski, 38, is a professional in this endeavor. He previously
developed the board game Pursue the Pennant, which was an amazingly
lifelike representation of baseball. Dynasty League Baseball, which is
available as both a board game and a computer game, is even better.
Cieslinski works from a data base that the Internal Revenue Service would envy.
It is one thing to have variables on all the basics -- hitting, pitching,
fielding. It is another to have range, clutch hitting, injury frequency.
It is still another to have weather conditions, umpiring tendencies, team
chemistry.
Win or lose, this is a terrific game. Cieslinski has done what he set out
to do,
which was to develop a game that somehow incorporates the multitude of nuances
that baseball contains. You know when the starting pitcher tires. You know
which
hitters can be counted upon to move the runner and which cannot. You even know
which players can be counted upon to break up that double play through
sheer hustle.
... continued
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Caminante1 (camin...@aol.com) wrote:
: Reality in baseball is depressing me, so I am thinking of returning to
: fantasy baseball. I am looking for the best computer baseball game. I
: used to play the Pursue the Pennant board game. I'd like a game just like
: that on a computer. Graphics are unimportant to me. I need a game that
: will quickly play and manage games reasonably well. A game that will keep
: track of all the statistics. Please give me your recomendations. I have
: Windows 95 and a fast computer.
You are in luck you can buy the computer game version of Pursue the
Pennant. It's now called Diamond Mind Baseball.
You can get more information via their website:
http://www.shore.net/~diamond/
Another high quality strategy game is Strat-o-Matic Baseball. Their
website is: http://www.strat-o-matic.com
The one game you will have to avoid is Dynasty League Baseball. That
one is based off the board game of the same name. It was done by one of
the people responcible for Pursue the Pennant. But the coputer company is
on shakey ground. They don't put out season disks every season and it's
hard to say how long they will be around.
Strat-o-matic will be around for a long time and Diamond Mind Baseball
likeley will.
### ./\. ### JASON POTAPOFF. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
### _|\| |/|_ ### Email: jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
### \ / ### "Life... it's like a box of chocolates. A
### >______< ### cheap, thoughtless perfunctory gift that
### / ### nobody ever asks for."
wand...@voicenet.com
>
> > Reality in baseball is depressing me, so I am thinking of returning to
> > fantasy baseball. I am looking for the best computer baseball game. I
> > used to play the Pursue the Pennant board game. I'd like a game just like
> > that on a computer. Graphics are unimportant to me. I need a game that
> > will quickly play and manage games reasonably well. A game that will keep
> > track of all the statistics. Please give me your recomendations. I have
> > Windows 95 and a fast computer.
> >
>
> Your ship has come in. DYNASTY League Baseball is exactly what you are
> looking for. The following review appeared in the Milwaukee Journal on
>
How anyone can purchase a baseball game without this feature is beyond
me! Get either Diamond Mind Baseball or Strat-O-Matic. DM has the best
computer manager, Strat has more features and graphics. Regards
Rob Weaver
> As far as I know, Dynasty doesn't even offer a computer manager!
> How anyone can purchase a baseball game without this feature is beyond
> me! Get either Diamond Mind Baseball or Strat-O-Matic. DM has the best
> computer manager, Strat has more features and graphics. Regards
>
If you liked Pursue the Pennant, go with Diamond Mind Baseball, because
that is what Pursue the Pennant is called now (it changed its name a couple
of years ago). It definitely doesn't have the graphics (it's mostly text),
but it seems to be the most accurate simulation I've played.
Rob Weaver
Michael Cieslinski
In article <5uci3n$evq$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>, jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
() wrote:
> Caminante1 (camin...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Reality in baseball is depressing me, so I am thinking of returning to
> : fantasy baseball. I am looking for the best computer baseball game. I
> : used to play the Pursue the Pennant board game. I'd like a game just like
> : that on a computer. Graphics are unimportant to me. I need a game that
> : will quickly play and manage games reasonably well. A game that will keep
> : track of all the statistics. Please give me your recomendations. I have
> : Windows 95 and a fast computer.
>
> You are in luck you can buy the computer game version of Pursue the
> Pennant. It's now called Diamond Mind Baseball.
>
> You can get more information via their website:
> http://www.shore.net/~diamond/
>
> Another high quality strategy game is Strat-o-Matic Baseball. Their
> website is: http://www.strat-o-matic.com
>
> The one game you will have to avoid is Dynasty League Baseball. That
> one is based off the board game of the same name. It was done by one of
> the people responcible for Pursue the Pennant. But the coputer company is
> on shakey ground. They don't put out season disks every season and it's
> hard to say how long they will be around.
This information is false and untrue. It was not done by one of the people
responsible for Pursue the Pennant. It was done by THE person who designed
the Pursue the Pennant board game. This is also the same person who
started the Pursue the Pennant company. The Pursue the Pennant board game
is a completely different game then the old Pursue the Pennant computer
game. We found Tom Tippet at a SABR convention in Chicago and he already
had his own game developed. Efforts were made to make the game
cosmetically like the PTP board game, but it has always been and still is
a completely different game.
The inquiry was regarding a computer game that was like the Pursue the
Pennant board game. The Pursue the Pennant computer game has no relation
to the Pursue the Pennant board game other than some cosmetic treatment
and the name.
Design Depot has been developing sports simulation software since 1992
including simulation and fantasy software. We have many different seasons.
We do put out season disks every season including our Best of Baseball
Series featuring the greatest Pennant Races, World Series and Playoffs.
Not sure what "the coputer company is on shakey ground" means, but
thousands of customers are currently using DYNASTY and the game is getting
great reviews from the media.
You can read a recent review from June 19, 1997 in sports columnist
Michael Bauman's Milwaukee Journal
For the full column visit:
http://www.onwis.com/sports/brew/thu/baum61997.stm
The latest version is version 1.31 which was just released.
Michael Cieslinski
> Michael Cieslinski wrote:
> >
> > In article <19970831043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> > camin...@aol.com (Caminante1) wrote:
> >
> > > Reality in baseball is depressing me, so I am thinking of returning to
> > > fantasy baseball. I am looking for the best computer baseball game. I
> > > used to play the Pursue the Pennant board game. I'd like a game just like
> > > that on a computer. Graphics are unimportant to me. I need a game that
> > > will quickly play and manage games reasonably well. A game that will keep
> > > track of all the statistics. Please give me your recomendations. I have
> > > Windows 95 and a fast computer.
> > >
> > > THanks :)
> >
> > Your ship has come in. DYNASTY League Baseball is exactly what you are
> > looking for. The following review appeared in the Milwaukee Journal on
> >
> As far as I know, Dynasty doesn't even offer a computer manager!
The game is currently designed for head to head play locally or on the
internet. Upgrades are FREE and will include an auto managner.
Michael Cieslinski
In article <01bcb750$58fa5a00$4fa4...@rweaver.snider.net>, "Rob Weaver"
<rwe...@alltel.net> wrote:
> > As far as I know, Dynasty doesn't even offer a computer manager!
> > How anyone can purchase a baseball game without this feature is beyond
> > me! Get either Diamond Mind Baseball or Strat-O-Matic. DM has the best
> > computer manager, Strat has more features and graphics. Regards
> >
>
> If you liked Pursue the Pennant, go with Diamond Mind Baseball, because
> that is what Pursue the Pennant is called now (it changed its name a couple
> of years ago). It definitely doesn't have the graphics (it's mostly text),
> but it seems to be the most accurate simulation I've played.
>
> Rob Weaver
The inquiry was concerning the Pursue the Pennant board game. The Pursue
the Pennant computer game has no relation other than cosmetic to the
Pursue the Pennant board game. DYNASTY League Baseball is even more
realistic than the Pursue the Pennant board game and yet plays very
similar. It is almost exactly like the Pursue the Pennant board game. The
Pursue the Pennant computer game (DMB) is completely different the Pursue
the Pennant board game, even though it tries to imitate some of the Pursue
the Pennant board game features.
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
wand...@voicenet.com wrote:
: As far as I know, Dynasty doesn't even offer a computer manager!
: How anyone can purchase a baseball game without this feature is beyond
: me! Get either Diamond Mind Baseball or Strat-O-Matic. DM has the best
: computer manager, Strat has more features and graphics. Regards
I have never seen the Dynasty League Baesball game so I'll avoid talking
about it. Although it does sound like it's a few years behind SOM and
DMB in the way of program evolution. Just like DMB is a few years behind
SOM in evolution.
Diamond Mind Baesball and Strat-o-Matic are very close to quality. SOM
has a better computer manager than DMB though. SOM has probally the best
computer manager for any computer program i have ever seen. It manages to
use the players the way they were used in the real season, while at the
same time using each player in an intelligent way that gets the most out
of him. SOM is also good at not getting into predictable paterns. It's
hard to be able to completly predict what the computer will do next. It
doesn't use the relievers in the exactly same way over and over again. It
varies it's strategy. DMB on the other hand is a little more
predictable. It will often use the same relievers every time. For
example in a play by e-mail DMB league i'm in every series I play the
computer manager will stick in the same set up man each time. PResumably
over the long haul of the season they will vary the amount each player
gets used as they will start to skip over the #1 man in the depth chart
for fatigue reasons. But with the way the stats system handles things for
a PBEM game, each time we play against a comptuer controlled team their
stats are zeroes out and therefore the comuter doesn't use pitchign
fatique to help vary who gets put in. SOm doesn't have this problem.
I do prefer DMB's handling of defensive ratings. Instead of giving a
player's range at each position based upon his reputation DMB uses a
variety of defensive stats (like Defensive Range, and Defensive Average).
This means a lot of players in DMB who are preceived to be either really
bad defensively or really good defensively are actually the opposite
according to the stats. While in SOM some guys get high ratings year in
and year out simply because of his reputation. ONe good example is MIke
Bordick. In SOM he's got a range of 2 (above average),because he's one of
those no hit shortstops who everyone assumes has great defence. But in
DMB his 1996 stats ave him as an average range. Kevin Elster is a range
of 3 in SOM (average) but in DMB he's got a range of very good. This is
expecially good for players with limited time at a position. SOM rarely
rates a player as being good defensively at his secondary positions. Even
if that player used to play at that position and just recently switched to
it. (for example the year when Surhoff moves from catcher to third base.
All of a sudden he's now a poor defensive catcher and an average third
baseman. Funny the year before he was an above average defensive catcher).
But because DMB bases the ratings off of stats a player can end up being
better at his secondary position than the one he played most at during the
season. SOM assumes that if a player played only a few games at a
particular position then he must not have been good at it. That's not
always the case. The player could be very good at that position but the
team needed him to play another position.
DMB's pitching fatigue system is fantastic. A pitcher's endurance gives
him rating where he gets tired after facing a certain range of batters.
(for example a starter with Very Good endurance will start to get tired
somewhere between 29 to 33 batters faced). Then the more he pitched over
that range the worse he will pitch. But also he has a total fatigue over a
span of 5 days that takes into account how much he has pitched during that
time. (this is GREAT for relief pitchers). Whereas SOM has a flat
pitching fatigue ratings. His endurance rating will tell him pretty much
how many innigns he can pitch before getting tired. And the only hanlding
of fatigue over the long haul is based off of having to rest a certain
period of days. (ie. A starter has to rest 4 days aftereach start. A
reliever has to rest 1 dayt if he appears in consecutive games). I
prefer DMB's more advanced handling.
BUt SOM has other things going for it. Like the better computer manager,
more frills and the like... Basically SOM has a couple years head start
on DMB, in two years DMB should be at around the level of features that
SOM has now. Which is why I place very little importance on the Dynasty
League game. Its even farther back in the way of computer evolution so I
would assume that it's got more than a few years to catch up. By then the
otehr games will probally have other features that still puts it ahead...
### ./\. ### JASON POTAPOFF. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
### _|\| |/|_ ### Email: jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
### \ / ###
### >______< ###
### / ###
Michael Cieslinski
In article <5uhi2j$ge0$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>, jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
() wrote:
>
> I have never seen the Dynasty League Baesball game so I'll avoid talking
> about it. Although it does sound like it's a few years behind SOM and
> DMB in the way of program evolution. Just like DMB is a few years behind
> SOM in evolution.
DYNASTY League Baseball is only behind in some of the peripheral features
that support the game. DYNASTY is focused on local and internet FTF play.
In terms of the game itself, DYNASTY is the clear leader in terms of
realism.
> I do prefer DMB's handling of defensive ratings. Instead of giving a
> player's range at each position based upon his reputation DMB uses a
> variety of defensive stats (like Defensive Range, and Defensive Average).
> This means a lot of players in DMB who are preceived to be either really
> bad defensively or really good defensively are actually the opposite
> according to the stats. While in SOM some guys get high ratings year in
> and year out simply because of his reputation. ONe good example is MIke
> Bordick. In SOM he's got a range of 2 (above average),because he's one of
> those no hit shortstops who everyone assumes has great defence. But in
> DMB his 1996 stats ave him as an average range. Kevin Elster is a range
> of 3 in SOM (average) but in DMB he's got a range of very good. This is
> expecially good for players with limited time at a position. SOM rarely
> rates a player as being good defensively at his secondary positions. Even
> if that player used to play at that position and just recently switched to
> it. (for example the year when Surhoff moves from catcher to third base.
> All of a sudden he's now a poor defensive catcher and an average third
> baseman. Funny the year before he was an above average defensive catcher).
> But because DMB bases the ratings off of stats a player can end up being
> better at his secondary position than the one he played most at during the
> season. SOM assumes that if a player played only a few games at a
> particular position then he must not have been good at it. That's not
> always the case. The player could be very good at that position but the
> team needed him to play another position.
From 1985-1989, the Pursue the Pennant computer game used the Pursue the
Pennant board game player ratings. After that time, the PTP computer game
handled it's own ratings. When this happened, many PTP computer players
were so disapointed in the player ratings that they manually entered the
board game ratings into the computer version.
DMB players tell us that the problem with the DMB defensive ratings is
that they are "slave" to the STATS zone ratings, which STATS President
John Dewan will be the first to admit are far from perfect. This isn't
strictly about reputation vs. stats. It isn't that simple. In a recent
conversation I had with Gil Lebreton, sports columnist with the Ft. Worth
Star Telegram, he admitted their DMB league was disapointed with the DMB
ratings and did not feel they were realistic because they are "slave" to
strict formulas. This is one reason why they plan on switching to DYNASTY.
A tremendous amount of effort goes into the creation of the DYNASTY player
ratings to give you the best possible replication of a player's strengths
and weaknesses. Most ratings are based on a 1-10 scale or A-F including
A+, B+ and C+ to give you a broad spectrum of ratings and precise
statistical accuracy. The ratings are devised from thoroughly researched
and tested formulas and computer calculations. In some cases though, you
simply can't devise a formula that will take all factors into account.
That's why it's important to look at more than one stat and at times get
evaluations from informed writers and experts who cover the team and even
players and managers scouting reports. It's this kind of effort combined
with the foremost knowledge and insight into the game that makes DYNASTY
League Baseball's ratings the best ratings of any baseball simulation
game.
>
> DMB's pitching fatigue system is fantastic. A pitcher's endurance gives
> him rating where he gets tired after facing a certain range of batters.
> (for example a starter with Very Good endurance will start to get tired
> somewhere between 29 to 33 batters faced). Then the more he pitched over
> that range the worse he will pitch. But also he has a total fatigue over a
> span of 5 days that takes into account how much he has pitched during that
> time. (this is GREAT for relief pitchers). Whereas SOM has a flat
> pitching fatigue ratings. His endurance rating will tell him pretty much
> how many innigns he can pitch before getting tired. And the only hanlding
> of fatigue over the long haul is based off of having to rest a certain
> period of days. (ie. A starter has to rest 4 days aftereach start. A
> reliever has to rest 1 dayt if he appears in consecutive games). I
> prefer DMB's more advanced handling.
DYNASTY also uses batters faced for endurance and pitchers performance
suffers in a number of categories that you are able to SEE when those play
results occur. This is not true of other games.
What separates DYNASTY from other games is that you know exactly which
ratings effected a play result, when this occured, and what the % of the
player making the play were, etc. In other games, when specifically does a
player's range rating effect a play? You don't have a clue. So what's the
point of having player ratings if you don't know how they effect the
outcome of the play and your strategic decisions?
More on this at http://www.designdepot.com (visit Game Design). We'll also
have a demo out in the Fall of the new v1.4 and you'll see just how
different and fascinating an experience it is playing DYNASTY.
>
> BUt SOM has other things going for it. Like the better computer manager,
> more frills and the like... Basically SOM has a couple years head start
> on DMB, in two years DMB should be at around the level of features that
> SOM has now. Which is why I place very little importance on the Dynasty
> League game. Its even farther back in the way of computer evolution so I
> would assume that it's got more than a few years to catch up. By then the
> otehr games will probally have other features that still puts it ahead...
DYNASTY, in effect, started back in 1982 when the Pursue the Pennant board
game was being designed. What DYNASTY lacks in peripheral features, it
more than makes up for in terms of realism. Other games are still way
behind in the realism found in the original Pursue the Pennant board (and
now DYNASTY game), despite trying to imitate it.
And back to the original question, the inquirer wanted a game very similar
to the Pursue the Pennant board game on computer. There is only one place
to find it: DYNASTY League Baseball.
Mark Jareb
Michael Cieslinski wrote:
> In article, jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
> DYNASTY League Baseball is only behind in some of the peripheral features
> that support the game. DYNASTY is focused on local and internet FTF play.
> In terms of the game itself, DYNASTY is the clear leader in terms of
> realism.
You've said this phrase a number of times in this thread and I'm curious
as to what exactly you mean by "realism". From what I've seen Dynasty
is *not* the most accurate simulation statistically speaking (DMB and
SOM have you beat in that category). Dynasty does have more extraneous
situational variables -- maybe that's what you're referring to as more
realism --however, I personally find that a drawback since in a number
of cases the relationship between these variables and statistical
performance simply follows conventional wisdom (whereas in reality,
statistical analysis of some of these variables find no relationship to
performance).
BTW I play in two Diamond Mind leagues which have been playing games FTF
over the internet the last 2 years
>
To each their own I guess.
> DMB players tell us that the problem with the DMB defensive ratings is
> that they are "slave" to the STATS zone ratings, which STATS President
> John Dewan will be the first to admit are far from perfect. This isn't
> strictly about reputation vs. stats. It isn't that simple. In a recent
> conversation I had with Gil Lebreton, sports columnist with the Ft. Worth
> Star Telegram, he admitted their DMB league was disapointed with the DMB
> ratings and did not feel they were realistic because they are "slave" to
> strict formulas. This is one reason why they plan on switching to DYNASTY.
Well those DMB players (as well as Gil L.) appear to not know where or
how DMB rates players defensively (at least since it has become known as
DMB). DMB primarily uses the stats from The Baseball Workshop (which
was formerly known as Project Scoresheet) -- these are the stats from
which Defensive Average is calcualted the same defensive measure that
has been widely used and discussed on the r.s.bb newsgroups for years
now. Their zones are different from STATS and the analysis done by DMB
is much more extensive than just DA. Secondly, I prefer objective
analysis over subjective views -- to me that's the cornerstone of an
accurate and realistic simulation.
> And back to the original question, the inquirer wanted a game very similar
> to the Pursue the Pennant board game on computer. There is only one place
> to find it: DYNASTY League Baseball.
You focused on the part where he wanted a game just like the PTP board
game. Others focused on the part where he said he wanted the best
computer game :-)
Truthfully Michael, you'd do a much better job of promoting your game if
you'd just present the features of your game that are unique and better
without sniping at your competitors. I was interested in Dynasty when
it first came out but two things turned me off. First, alot of the extra
variables used by Dynasty as well as the feature of seeing the numbers
behind the play, I personally find a detraction -- but that's personal
preference and others obviously find those positives. Second, and IMO
more importantly, your posts on the r.s.bb. newsgroups have made me
particularly uninterested in supporting your business -- it tends to be
a very confrontational tone, which I don't think is the wisest when
trying to attract new customers. You really ought to get somebody other
than yourself to do your PR.
Mark
Michael Cieslinski
> Michael Cieslinski wrote:
>
> > In article, jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
> > DYNASTY League Baseball is only behind in some of the peripheral features
>
> > that support the game. DYNASTY is focused on local and internet FTF play.
>
> > In terms of the game itself, DYNASTY is the clear leader in terms of
>
> > realism.
>
>
>
> You've said this phrase a number of times in this thread and I'm curious
>
> as to what exactly you mean by "realism". From what I've seen Dynasty
>
> is *not* the most accurate simulation statistically speaking (DMB and
>
> SOM have you beat in that category).
Not sure what this is based on.
Dynasty does have more extraneous
>
> situational variables -- maybe that's what you're referring to as more
>
> realism --however, I personally find that a drawback since in a number
>
> of cases the relationship between these variables and statistical
>
> performance simply follows conventional wisdom (whereas in reality,
>
> statistical analysis of some of these variables find no relationship to
>
> performance).
Statistical accuracy and realism are two different categories. Everyone
might have their own definition of realism. Part of realism is the ability
to capture the subtle nuances of the game that make baseball the
fascinating game that it is. It's not necessarily an empirical study. It
can only be quantified with the "feel" of the game when you are playing.
Gil Lebreton gave me some specific examples of the ratings (Roberto Alomar
Average range) and at least in his opinion and his fellow Ranger sports
writers, he did not agree with the methodology. He'll be doing a review of
DYNASTY in his Ft. Worth Star Telegram column so I'm sure he'll include
some comparisons.
>
>
>
> > And back to the original question, the inquirer wanted a game very similar
>
> > to the Pursue the Pennant board game on computer. There is only one place
>
> > to find it: DYNASTY League Baseball.
>
>
>
> You focused on the part where he wanted a game just like the PTP board
>
> game. Others focused on the part where he said he wanted the best
>
> computer game :-)
>
>
>
> Truthfully Michael, you'd do a much better job of promoting your game if
>
> you'd just present the features of your game that are unique and better
>
> without sniping at your competitors. I was interested in Dynasty when
>
> it first came out but two things turned me off. First, alot of the extra
>
> variables used by Dynasty as well as the feature of seeing the numbers
>
> behind the play, I personally find a detraction -- but that's personal
>
> preference and others obviously find those positives. Second, and IMO
>
> more importantly, your posts on the r.s.bb. newsgroups have made me
>
> particularly uninterested in supporting your business -- it tends to be
>
> a very confrontational tone, which I don't think is the wisest when
>
> trying to attract new customers. You really ought to get somebody other
>
> than yourself to do your PR.
I think our story is told best by the baseball media who have made a
career of following baseball closely and whose job it is to provide
opinions and facts in a clear and entertaining way by describing the
features and benefits of the game. For the most part, making announcements
of new reviews is the largest part of my posts in the newsgroups.
As far as other competing games, most of the games out on the market are
good games and they all have their merits. Choosing a game depends on your
own personal preference. I did mention Gil Lebreton's comments concerning
defensive ratings - we hear this type of comment frequently. I regard
Lebreton as a credible source. I wouldn't categorize it as "sniping".
There is some confusion in terms of what happened to PTP and how the PTP
board game and computer game are two completely different games. We just
want to make sure that people have the correct information and lift the
fog of misinformation. DYNASTY is the closest thing to a translation of
the PTP board game. DMB is not. Each game has it's own merits. Everyone is
going to have their own opinions on what they want in a baseball
simulation game.
In terms of customer relations, I personally know and have played with
many of our customers at our tournaments around the country and have
developed many friendships over the years. I consider our customers our
friends. If you write to us your letter gets answered. If you need help
we help you. If you have a suggestion we listen. We are not always
perfect, but we do make the effort.
>
>
>
> Mark
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mark Jareb (mi...@virginia.edu) wrote:
: Michael Cieslinski wrote:
: BTW I play in two Diamond Mind leagues which have been playing games FTF
: over the internet the last 2 years
Both Strat-o-Matic and Diamond Mind Baseball are able to play games over
the internet muhc like any non-graphic intensive program. (even APBA
Hockey can be played over the internet even though it wasn't designed to).
And SOM and DMB have the advantage that they actually have a computer
manager so you don't require another person to play the game with.
<deleted quoted section where Michael Cieslinski incorectly states the way
DMB determines their defensive ratings. >
: Well those DMB players (as well as Gil L.) appear to not know where or
: how DMB rates players defensively (at least since it has become known as
: DMB). DMB primarily uses the stats from The Baseball Workshop (which
: was formerly known as Project Scoresheet) -- these are the stats from
: which Defensive Average is calcualted the same defensive measure that
: has been widely used and discussed on the r.s.bb newsgroups for years
: now. Their zones are different from STATS and the analysis done by DMB
: is much more extensive than just DA. Secondly, I prefer objective
: analysis over subjective views -- to me that's the cornerstone of an
: accurate and realistic simulation.
Nothing like using incorect information to try and bash your opponent
eh?
: Truthfully Michael, you'd do a much better job of promoting your game if
: you'd just present the features of your game that are unique and better
: without sniping at your competitors.
I agree. While DMB and SOM will occasionally try and point out how their
program does things better than their competators, they manage to state
their point without naming names. It removes the "finger pointing" element
from the sales pitch.
: I was interested in Dynasty when
: it first came out but two things turned me off. First, alot of the extra
: variables used by Dynasty as well as the feature of seeing the numbers
: behind the play, I personally find a detraction -- but that's personal
: preference and others obviously find those positives.
Covers the best of both worlds here. If you want the game mechanics to
run entirely in the background you have that. If you want to know where
certain key boardgame mechanics come into play you can flip a switch that
will point those things out when you play. Or you can play in dice mode
where you are essentially playing as if it were the board game adn the
computer is just refereeing for you. Personally I prefer the occasional
game mechanic feature myself (like when a fielder's range comes into play)
expecially when playing league games in my PBEM league. But I can live
without it if the game's other features are good enough.
I was interested in Dynasty League Baseball when I caught it's ad in a
Sporting News yearbook. But I quickly put it out of my mind because it
was a board game and I wasn't going to mess around with board games
anymore, not when the computer does it much more convieniantly. Then when
I was looking around for a potential replacement to SOM after their latest
money grubing moves, I heard that there was a computer version of DLB.
But I was immediatly turned off about the reports that they weren't doing
stats disks that year (whether that was true or not is probally up for
grabs). But i'm glad I didn't waste any time with it now that I know that
Dynasty League baseball doesn't have a computer manager... Well geez, what
use is it for me? Even if they do come out with an "auto manager" as they
call it. It's clear that they place very litte importance on the computer
manager (something with is the key to a computer baseball game in my mind)
so the likelyhood that the computer manager will be any good is rather
slim. And the lack of a computer manager begs the question what other
horribly important features does this program have missing?
: Second, and IMO
: more importantly, your posts on the r.s.bb. newsgroups have made me
: particularly uninterested in supporting your business -- it tends to be
: a very confrontational tone, which I don't think is the wisest when
: trying to attract new customers. You really ought to get somebody other
: than yourself to do your PR.
Exactly. It's really bad form to try and promote your own product by
trying to shoot down the competators. Expecially if you use incorrect
information in the process. By just stating things reguarding your game
you don't run the risk of using disinformation to promote your game. Much
like Micheal seems to have been doing (hopefully unwittingly). Now that
he knows the ACTUAL way DMB does their defensvie ratings, hopefully he
will make changes to the sales pitch on the game's website.
o_gelba
Michael Cieslinski (ne...@gate.net) wrote:
: In article <5uhi2j$ge0$1...@news.sas.ab.ca>, jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: () wrote:
: >
: > I have never seen the Dynasty League Baesball game so I'll avoid talking
: > about it. Although it does sound like it's a few years behind SOM and
: > DMB in the way of program evolution. Just like DMB is a few years behind
: > SOM in evolution.
: DYNASTY League Baseball is only behind in some of the peripheral features
: that support the game. DYNASTY is focused on local and internet FTF play.
: In terms of the game itself, DYNASTY is the clear leader in terms of
: realism.
As a long time baseball sim player (I have played table games for over 15
years and computer sims since the mid eighties), I am quite impressed with
your arrogance. Feel free to define "clear leader"
[Large Snip]
: From 1985-1989, the Pursue the Pennant computer game used the Pursue the
Like what? Instead of just telling me your ratings are the best, tell me
why. Give concrete examples instead of just telling me that it's
thoroughly researched and tested. What makes your fielding ratings the
right ones and the DMB ones, or Strat for that matter, wrong? I'm willing
to listen, but give me facts, not your biased opinions.
: > DMB's pitching fatigue system is fantastic. A pitcher's endurance gives
: > him rating where he gets tired after facing a certain range of batters.
: > (for example a starter with Very Good endurance will start to get tired
: > somewhere between 29 to 33 batters faced). Then the more he pitched over
: > that range the worse he will pitch. But also he has a total fatigue over a
: > span of 5 days that takes into account how much he has pitched during that
: > time. (this is GREAT for relief pitchers). Whereas SOM has a flat
: > pitching fatigue ratings. His endurance rating will tell him pretty much
: > how many innigns he can pitch before getting tired. And the only hanlding
: > of fatigue over the long haul is based off of having to rest a certain
: > period of days. (ie. A starter has to rest 4 days aftereach start. A
: > reliever has to rest 1 dayt if he appears in consecutive games). I
: > prefer DMB's more advanced handling.
: DYNASTY also uses batters faced for endurance and pitchers performance
: suffers in a number of categories that you are able to SEE when those play
: results occur. This is not true of other games.
Actually DMB now has pitch by pitch, and in APBA the pitcher's rankings
fall on screen during the game.
: What separates DYNASTY from other games is that you know exactly which
: ratings effected a play result, when this occured, and what the % of the
: player making the play were, etc. In other games, when specifically does a
: player's range rating effect a play? You don't have a clue. So what's the
: point of having player ratings if you don't know how they effect the
: outcome of the play and your strategic decisions?
: More on this at http://www.designdepot.com (visit Game Design). We'll also
: have a demo out in the Fall of the new v1.4 and you'll see just how
: different and fascinating an experience it is playing DYNASTY.
: >
: > BUt SOM has other things going for it. Like the better computer manager,
: > more frills and the like... Basically SOM has a couple years head start
: > on DMB, in two years DMB should be at around the level of features that
: > SOM has now. Which is why I place very little importance on the Dynasty
: > League game. Its even farther back in the way of computer evolution so I
: > would assume that it's got more than a few years to catch up. By then the
: > otehr games will probally have other features that still puts it ahead...
: DYNASTY, in effect, started back in 1982 when the Pursue the Pennant board
: game was being designed. What DYNASTY lacks in peripheral features, it
: more than makes up for in terms of realism. Other games are still way
: behind in the realism found in the original Pursue the Pennant board (and
: now DYNASTY game), despite trying to imitate it.
OK, what peripheral features DOES it lack. Does it have a computer manager
or not? In this day and age of computers, a computer manager is NOT a
peripheral feature, it is a must. What other computer baseball games have
no computer manager? Sorry, but it is a FATAL flaw. On another level, if
your game is so perfect, why is it that no one hears anything about it on
this newsgroup, the net, web magazines, and regular magazines, except when
you post to the group? I have played PtP, Strat, DMB, APBA, Diamond
Dreams, and a few other older games, and have read write ups on ALL of
them, except the older ones, but none on your game. Please don't
misinterpret, I'm sure your game has some fine points to it, and when the
demo comes out i'll certainly try it and maybe change my mind, but I do
not think the way to "pump up" your game is to point out perceived
shortcomings in other games, saying owners of DMB don't like the fielding
ratings, or are changing for whatever reason. What about all the customers
that like other games, and have made them better sellers than yours, with
better reputations, I haven't heard enough about Dynasty to form a
reputation, good or bad. Trashing competitor's games and saying yours is
the best is not going to win you many converts or fans.
: And back to the original question, the inquirer wanted a game very similar
: to the Pursue the Pennant board game on computer. There is only one place
: to find it: DYNASTY League Baseball.
I guess seein is believin...
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Covers the best of both worlds here. If you want the game mechanics to
: run entirely in the background you have that. If you want to know where
: certain key boardgame mechanics come into play you can flip a switch that
: will point those things out when you play. Or you can play in dice mode
: where you are essentially playing as if it were the board game adn the
: computer is just refereeing for you. Personally I prefer the occasional
: game mechanic feature myself (like when a fielder's range comes into play)
: expecially when playing league games in my PBEM league. But I can live
: without it if the game's other features are good enough.
I some how managed to forget to add SOM to the beginning of that
paragraph. Kind of an important part of that comment...
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
o_gelba (o_g...@alcor.concordia.ca) wrote:
: Michael Cieslinski (ne...@gate.net) wrote:
: As a long time baseball sim player (I have played table games for over 15
: years and computer sims since the mid eighties), I am quite impressed with
: your arrogance. Feel free to define "clear leader"
I wouldn't hold that against him. EVERY sales pitch for a baseball game
makes the clain that they are "the clear leader in realism". Be it SOM,
DMB, DLB, APBA, Micro League Baseball or Front Page Sports Baseball.
: : DYNASTY also uses batters faced for endurance and pitchers performance
: : suffers in a number of categories that you are able to SEE when those play
: : results occur. This is not true of other games.
: Actually DMB now has pitch by pitch, and in APBA the pitcher's rankings
: fall on screen during the game.
For that matter SOM has always told you when a pitcher is tired. As
well as pointing out when the result of the play was affected by his being
tired. (with the statement "he's looking REAL tired" after giving the
result of the play)
: OK, what peripheral features DOES it lack. Does it have a computer manager
: or not? In this day and age of computers, a computer manager is NOT a
: peripheral feature, it is a must. What other computer baseball games have
: no computer manager? Sorry, but it is a FATAL flaw. On another level, if
But Dynasty League Baseball is meant to play face to face because it's
more fun to play agaisnt a human than a computer. At least that's the
reasoning he gave me in e-mail. But I think that's a load of crap. EVERY
computer baseball game needs to have a quality computer manager. Because
not everyone can find someone else to play against. Besides both DMB and
SOM (and I would assume APBA) CAN play face to face games over the
Internet allready, yet they have capable computer managers. Also how many
people play replay leagues with other people? (the kind where you try to
re-inact the entire season by playing with your favorite teams) That often
used pasttime for computer baseball games is very much a solitaire
venture. I can't see too many people wanting to go out of their way to try
and find a live opponent so that they can do a replay season. Or be forced
to manage both sides.
But I aluded to that question as well. If something so important as a
computer manager is not there. What other important peripheral features
are missing? Stats collection? Hard drive access?
Of course that's absurd any game made in the 90s has those features.
But then again until I heard that DLB didn't have a computer manager I
thought it was absurd to think that a game doesn't have that.
: : And back to the original question, the inquirer wanted a game very similar
: : to the Pursue the Pennant board game on computer. There is only one place
: : to find it: DYNASTY League Baseball.
: I guess seein is believin...
Actually he said he prefered a game very similar to Pursue the Pennant,
but he also wanted the best baseball sim out there. I can hazzard a
guess that PTP isn't the best sim out there even if you don't mind having
to find a human opponent everytime you want to play the game.
BballJunky
I enjoy APBA.
Cris Whetstone
Michael Cieslinski wrote:
>
> In article <340D11...@virginia.edu>, mi...@avery.med.virginia.edu wrote:
>
> > Michael Cieslinski wrote:
> >
> > > In article, jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
>
>
> Statistical accuracy and realism are two different categories. Everyone
> might have their own definition of realism. Part of realism is the ability
> to capture the subtle nuances of the game that make baseball the
> fascinating game that it is. It's not necessarily an empirical study. It
> can only be quantified with the "feel" of the game when you are playing.
So are you more interested in a quality baseball simulation or a more
cinematic experience to make one feel that they are experienceing
someting close to the real thing.
>
> >
> > Well those DMB players (as well as Gil L.) appear to not know where or
> >
> > how DMB rates players defensively (at least since it has become known as
> >
> > DMB). DMB primarily uses the stats from The Baseball Workshop (which
> >
> > was formerly known as Project Scoresheet) -- these are the stats from
> >
> > which Defensive Average is calcualted the same defensive measure that
> >
> > has been widely used and discussed on the r.s.bb newsgroups for years
> >
> > now. Their zones are different from STATS and the analysis done by DMB
> >
> > is much more extensive than just DA. Secondly, I prefer objective
> >
> > analysis over subjective views -- to me that's the cornerstone of an
> >
> > accurate and realistic simulation.
>
> Gil Lebreton gave me some specific examples of the ratings (Roberto Alomar
> Average range) and at least in his opinion and his fellow Ranger sports
> writers, he did not agree with the methodology. He'll be doing a review of
> DYNASTY in his Ft. Worth Star Telegram column so I'm sure he'll include
> some comparisons.
Oh good, another sports writer not to listen to. Alomar does have
average range. He makes lots of diving, spectacular plays beacause of
his lack of range, not because he has a lot. Besides, how many games
does Lebreton see Alomar play in a year?
But thanks for pointing these things out. I will most likely buy Diamond
Mind. You obviously do not seem interested in using facts to design your
game and would rather rely on the eyes of a few individuals with often
biased opinions.
--
Cris Whetstone ** To reply remove the * from my address**
Frank Catalanotto Fan Club
"Work is the curse of the drinking class." - Oscar Wilde
Mike Littau
In article <19970905004...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
Caminante1 <camin...@aol.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>checked out web sites yet. When should I expect a 1997 set? Also, how
>long does the average game playing against the computer take on these
>games? Will I be able to have the computer play both teams and keep
>statistics together for both computer-played teams and teams I play. What
[snip]
Diamond Mind Baseball can take as long or as short as you want. Having
the computer play games without showing any play by play can take less than
a second. Simply watching the game as the computer plays itself (watching
each play) can take less than five minutes. Managing your team through
a game takes slightly longer, depending on how much thought you put into
it. I could see a game lasting 15-20 minutes if you thought things through
(you can also always having the computer play the first 5+ innings and
start handling things in the late innings).
>
>What do you mean by SOM price gouging? How much do these two cost? From
>your answers, SOM sounds better as the graphics don't overly slow it down.
>I don;t like the idea of single defensive grades though.
SOM also has a demo you can download (DMB doesn't have one, but they do have
a liberal return policy for those that don't like it). I'm biased on this
one, but I wasn't too impressed with SOM's graphics (it won't make Sega or
Sony sweat, and I'd rather have DMB's plain ASCII format with lots of
information). I found the menu interface kind of hard to deal with too.
And SOM fans might have to correct me on this, but older SOM products have
"key disk" copy protections, which means if your disk goes back, you are
out of luck until you get a replacement (and nothing grinds a league to a
halt like waiting for a disk to arrive). DMB doesn't have this "feature".
Again, I'm biased on this one, but I've used the DMB/PTP computer game for
the past 3+ years, and have found it to be accurate, realistic & easy to use.
I don't think you could go wrong going with DMB.
Caminante1
First, thanks to everyone for all the answers. I guess I've limited it to
Diamond Mind and SOM. A really good computer manager interests me alot. I
probably won't buy anything until the 1997 season set comes out. I haven't
checked out web sites yet. When should I expect a 1997 set? Also, how
long does the average game playing against the computer take on these
games? Will I be able to have the computer play both teams and keep
statistics together for both computer-played teams and teams I play. What
games involving other teams. I'd then like stats to be kept for all these
games together (with leaders etc.) I hope a game is short (15 min) in
which case it would make an excellent study break without wasting too much
time. I figure I could have the computer play the other games while I am
busy on the computer doing other things.
What do you mean by SOM price gouging? How much do these two cost? From
your answers, SOM sounds better as the graphics don't overly slow it down.
I don;t like the idea of single defensive grades though.
Well thanks again. I await your answers.
And sorry, Mr. Ciesinski I need a computer manager and value players
opinions more than the game developers. Of course you are going to say
your game is the best. In the same way, I wouldn't ask Bill Gates which
computer system is best. His opinion would be too biased toward his product.
JEarls41
> Strat-o-matic will be around for a long time and Diamond Mind Baseball
>likeley will.
>
>### ./\. ### JASON POTAPOFF. Edmonton, A
I have been a Strat-O-Matic fan, both board and computer, since 1969 and
am totally satisfied with it.
ONE question, though: Does any game offer an adjustment to compensate for
the spreading out of the random number effect, or the dice effect, on
statistics?
Glenn Guzzo in Strat-Fan pointed out that only about 60-70% of players
will fall WITHIN 30 points of their average in a season: the rest are
outside the pale of "Standard Deviation".
For instance, I recently suffered with a Brooks Robinson 1969 who hit .199
all season, batting fifth. (He hit .234 that year.)
Could SOM, or does any game currently, offer an optional
"improvement/adjustment" option for midseason, for example?
They have altered effects for ballpark and clutch, etc. Perhaps one more
key symbol would be to an option: to change a hit to an out, or vice versa,
on players who you WANTED to come back to their real-life performance: in
this case, an option might be to click on the "adjustment " feature, click
on by individual players or by league wide stats (anyone at 90% usage or
above who is 30 points below or above the regular average.)
Obviously, MOST stats work out very nicely and it is part of the fun of
baseball, both stat wise and in a simulation game, for the stats to "come
back to earth" over the long haul. But in real baseball, this happens with
every player. In simulations, due to the limit of the mathematics and the
random numbers, a certain number of players do NOT "come back to earth" or
in Robinson's case, come back to their true ability.
I would like to know if anyone knows of such a game
.
I would love to see Strat offer such an option in the future, one that
would not necessitate changing individual cards.
Joe Earls
"The greater the island of knowledge, the longer the shoreline of wonder."
-- my father's
favorite quote
Joe Earls Tantasqua Regional HS/University of Mass
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Caminante1 (camin...@aol.com) wrote:
: First, thanks to everyone for all the answers. I guess I've limited it to
: Diamond Mind and SOM. A really good computer manager interests me alot. I
: probably won't buy anything until the 1997 season set comes out. I haven't
: checked out web sites yet. When should I expect a 1997 set?
Umm. Last year DMB's new season disk came out in Januarry. I'm not sure
if that's the regular time it comes out or not. SOM puts out their stats
disk on a specific month each year. But for the life of me I can't
remember which month that was... I'm thinking either Febuary or March..
: Also, how
: long does the average game playing against the computer take on these
: games?
I can usually get through a 3 game series in DMB in about 40 minutes,
depending one how long the games last and how many managerial moves I
make. (Some games have a lot of spots where you want to sit and think
about your moves before doing them, while some games go by lightning quick
because you didn't need to stop and think about your moves much.) And of
course with the new version supporting a one pitch mode, those games will
take longer to play. (but you can turn off the pitch-by-pitch mode if
prefer, according to the sales pitch. I haven't upgraded to the newer
version of DMB yet)
SOM on the other hand is a little slower. With the move to Windows, the
game has slowed down quite a bit. It used to take me only 20 minutes to
get through a game in SOM, now it's more like 30 to 40 minutes a game.
Depending on the speed of your computer, and how much play by play you
want the time will vary. I have a 486 33, so the delay in re-drawing the
screen everytime something changes on it, is a noticible 1 second delay.
I'm told that Pentiums don't have this problem. That short delay doens't
sound like much but when it's done after every single play it starts to
add up. WHich is why I hate the windows version and prefered the previous
dos version. I also play with the play-by-play set to next to nothing.
There are a variety of play-by-play settings that give you more script to
read but of course makes the game longer to play.
: Will I be able to have the computer play both teams and keep
: statistics together for both computer-played teams and teams I play. What
: I'd like to do is play a league by myself, having the computer play all
: games involving other teams. I'd then like stats to be kept for all these
: games together (with leaders etc.) I hope a game is short (15 min) in
: which case it would make an excellent study break without wasting too much
: time. I figure I could have the computer play the other games while I am
: busy on the computer doing other things.
Of course you can. The computer completly keeps track of the stats.
Also with both games you can quickplay games. That is the computer quickly
runs through the game without having to worry about updating you what's
happening or waiting for moves. Games that are quickplayed take only a
few seconds. You can even have the computer save the box scores from the
quickplayed games, or have the computer only save box scores from games
that had important events (ie. player hits 5 RBIs, gets 5 hits, hits more
than 2 home runs, a no hitter, etc. both games allow you to configure
what consitutes an important event).
: What do you mean by SOM price gouging? How much do these two cost? From
: your answers, SOM sounds better as the graphics don't overly slow it down.
: I don;t like the idea of single defensive grades though.
What I mena by price gouging is this. Every year SOM will make a new
version of their game, which you HAVE to buy if you want to use the new
season disk. So since 1991 when I first bought SOM, every year i have had
to essentially buy the game again (at a discounted price). When they
switched over from DOS to Windows SOM decided that everyone had to pay
full cost for the upgrade to the Windows CD version. To make matters
worse that even though I had to pay full price for the Windows version
after supporting them every year I didn't get a manual with the game. The
"manual" consisted of a help file on the CD. I have no idea if people
totally new to the company get an actual manual with the game. DMB on the
other hand gave me an excellent manual, once of those with the spiral
binding that makes it lie perfectly flat. Last year SOM also charged
extra for color ball parks (the game came with the stadium photos in black
and white). SOM's copy protection is a real pain as well. The game comes
with a key disk that you have to stick into your floppy drive everytime
you load the game. YOu can have the program copy the copy protection onto
your hard drive ONCE. Just don't have a hard drive crash, delete the
game, or change computers otherwise you have to go back to using the key
disk. Also if you havne't copied the copy protection from the key disk to
the hard drive every time you load up the game it first asks you if you
want to move the copy protection on the hard drive. Which forces you to
answer no then have to tell it which floppy drive to look for. It's an
annoying process to start up the game. And it's easy to make a mistake
like I did when I first got it and accidently answer yes to the move
protection question. And since my hard drive crashed a few days after
getting the game I now have lost that bit of copy protection. So I have to
use the key disk all the time. What's worse is the first time you use an
add on feature (like say color ball-parks, or a season disk from another
season) it'll ask you to stick in the key disk from THAT add-on. Which
surprised me when I loaded up a prior season of a PBEM league that I was
in. Forcing me to pull out my disk case and try and find the key disk for
that particular season. Same thing happened when I wanted to continue my
1995 season that I was still playing on with the older version. This begs
the question what about people who bought season disks on a 5.25" disk but
now use a computer that doesn't have that drive. Guess they are shit out
of luck. Another question is what happens when the floppy key disk goes
bad (as all floppies eventually do, expecially ones that get used nearly
every day) or gets a virus, etc. I assume that you can get ahold of SOM
and have them send in a replacement, if that costs anything extra or what
rings you have to jump through to convince them that you own the game is
anybody's question. As well as how long it will take them to send out the
disk to you, with you being unable to play the game until you get it. SOM
also has the policy that every time they make an upgrade, the any new
season disk won't work with the older versions. And they make upgrades
every single year. If you skip more than one upgrade you have to pay the
full price.
On the other hand DMB has no copy protection whatsoever.. I haven't been
with DMB long enough to know exactly how things work. BUt I believe that
they have the policy that SOM was SUPPOSED to have. That is any new
upgrade comes free with the purchase of the new season disk. And the
season disk is relatively cheap. Officially this is SOM's policy. But they
charge extra for their season disk when there is a "signifigant change"
with the upgrade. So far every season I have been with SOM, there has been
a "signifigant" upgrade. (often this can be as little as slightly
different ballpark graphics, or 6 new features in the game).
As for prices of the games. YOu'd have to check out their websites, i'm
not sure exactly what their prices are.
By the way DMB is a DOS bsed game with no graphics whatso ever. It's
entirely text. SOM is now a WIndows CD rom game (they still sell the DOS
non CD game but they won't make any further upgrades to it and will phase
it out in a few years). SOM has graphics, a fully mouse driven interface
and thats of frills. SOm's graphics aren't that special. Just a photo of
the ballpark, some quick animation of a picture pitching and a batter
swinging, and an animated ball that roughly corresponds to where the ball
is hit to. SOm also has an automated drafting feature (so you can run a
draft with the computer drafting for some or all of the teams), automated
trading feature (so the computer can comment on potential trades), and a
few other featues like that which DMB doesn't have. SOM's interface is a
little bit more user friendly than DMB in that DMB is not mouse driven.
Although in some areas I prefer SOM's interface over DMB. I hear that DMB
is eventually going to do a Windows version possibly in their next
version. Hopefully they will make the transition much better than SOM did.
jpot...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Mike Littau (lit...@unm.edu) wrote:
: And SOM fans might have to correct me on this, but older SOM products have
: "key disk" copy protections, which means if your disk goes back, you are
: out of luck until you get a replacement (and nothing grinds a league to a
: halt like waiting for a disk to arrive). DMB doesn't have this "feature".
They still have the key disk copy protection, bringing it back after a
one year layoff. Although now you can move the copy protection into the
hard drive or run off of the key disk if you prefer. See my previous
message for more details about the copy protection.
I do have to point out though that while I really like DMB, SOM does have
some features that DMB doesn't have. Which is why i'm probally going to
keep buying SOM as well as DMB. It's hard to mention the features that
SOM has over DMB, as it's more a bunch of little things that one notices
while playing with the program. It's hard to really specifically state
them. Much like some of the interface problems I have with both of the
games. (some things SOM does better, some parts of DMB's interface is
better than SOM. Nothing that can be easily pointed out, just little
things that either annoy you or make you happy). WHich is why when I
compare the two I say that SOM is about 2 years of evolution ahead of DMB.
The SOM program is just a bit more "sophisticated", which comes from a
couple more years of being in the field where users put the game through
it's paces and give sugestions to the designers.
: Again, I'm biased on this one, but I've used the DMB/PTP computer game for
: the past 3+ years, and have found it to be accurate, realistic & easy to use.
: I don't think you could go wrong going with DMB.
I agree. You can't go wrong with DMB, although I can safely say the same
thing about SOM as well. Really it's a toss up between the two programs.
Each have their good and bad points. The best suggestion I have is to
look at the features and determine which one fills what you want in a
baseball game more. Realism wise I say it's a toss up. Both are pretty
damn close which maybe DMB having a slight edge. SOM has more features,
more bells and whistles. BUt takes up more hard drive space.
IF you want to use the game for a play by e-mail type league I say go
with SOM. It's got a better computer manager (necesarry for leagues where
you hand out road game instructions and play home games agains the
computer), better control over the way the computer uses your team
(individual player codes for each player telling them things like bunt
more, steal more/less, don't use before a particular inning, etc.) and a
better system for handling stats (with reguards to a PBEM league). SOM
has game files which each owner can send in after playing their games.
THen import them into the master league file then send out the new league
file to the owners who can then play while having the prevous games stats
still available. With DMB you use a system where you add your stats to the
existing ones. Which means before each batch of new games you paly you
have to reset the stats to 0, which means when you play your games you
can't look at the stats build up. Which is a pain for determining
overusage. But more importantly totally screws up the great pitcher
fatique system (can't keep track of the batters faced if you are
reseting the stats after each series). But this is only important for
those who are running a play by e-mail type of league, which I don't think
you are but I mention for anyone else reading this message.
In the end, you cna't go wrong with either one. Just chose whichever
fits your needs the most. Depending on how much effort you want to go
into the best way to compare is this. Download SOM's demo, and play it.
Buy the DMB and play it. Now choose which one you like the most. if it's
SOM, then return DMB, get back your refund and buy SOM. IF it's DMB,
then you are set. I wouldn't suggest buying SOM with the intent on
returning it if you don't like it. They have the same sort of return
policy but I think it's more anal retentive than DMB's. If you move the
copy protection onto the hard drive you can't return it. And I think you
have less time to return it before you get your refund back. So you are
taking a risk in that you might not be able to return it. It's too bad
that DMB doesn't have a downloadable demo, but their return policy is
supposed to be pretty good. So it's a safe bet that you can buy it with
the intention just to try it out.
By the way you might have the worng impression about SOM's defensvie
ratings. Both games have multible defensvie ratings for their players.
BOth have a range rating to determine how well a player gets to balls,
both have an error rating to determine how often they make errors (neither
makes a distinction between throwing errors and glove errors
unfortunatly), and both rate the catchers and outfielders throwing arm.
DMB uses fielding percentage to determine how often he makes an error. SOM
has an error rating notes how many errors he would have made if he played
164 games at that position. (ie. Say a player played half the season's
games at 2b and made 5 errors. That pro-rates to 10 errors over a full
season so his error rating would be 10). Essentially this works out to be
the same. Although I prefer SOM's E rating a bit more over personal
preference. Also with reguards to outfielders I prefer SOM's e rating.
Beause in DMB the player is given a fielding percentage for each outfield
position he played in, while SOM gives him the same e rating. This means
for a player who played the bulk of his games in say right field, and 2 or
3 games in left. His fielding percentage will be greatly improved or
hampered by dum luck. A guy who played 3 games in LF could have gotten
lucky and not made any errors and have an artificially high fielding
percentage, or he could have gotten unlicky and made 2 or 3 errors and get
a really bad fielding percentage. Whereas in SOM the e rating is based
over his totaly play in outfield. This comes into play for anyone who
switched time between different outfield postions and can lead to some
players being better fielders in left when they played the bulk of their
play another spot. While SOM will rarely give a player a better fielding
rating in his secondary fielding positions. (with some players this works
better, in other players this doesn't work). That said I prefer DMB's
range ratings over SOM's. SOM bases the ragne ratings off of reputation,
while DMB base them off of stats. I think the stats make for a more
acurate rating of the real life baseball than pure reputation.
Both games take into account the catcher's arm as well as the pitcher's
ability to hold the runner when determining the sucess rate of a steal. In
SOM the pitcher's hold rating has as much of an factor on the safe
percetnage as the catcher's. In DMB i'm not sure if the pitcher's hold
rating just dermines the likelyhood that the runner will get a lead or if
it affects the safe percentage as well. That's a potential problem with
DMB. SOM's game mechanics can be looked at. So if you want you can delve
into the program a bit and get a good idea as to what ratings affects
what. While DMB keeps that stuff in the background. So it's hard to tell
exactly how often a player's range rating comes into play in DMB, or how
that pitcher's hold rating affects the attempted stolen base.
GFBacb
i have a friend who swears that batters in his computer game go for ages
without performing close to theirnumbers, then by season's end start rising
or falling to expectations
He plays the computer version of Pursue the Pennant (not Diamond Mind, as
he is too cheap to upgrade for 25 bucks or whatever).
He plays every game of two eight-team leagues.
i of the short attention span, however, can only talk about best-of-7
tournaments!
GFBacb
Scott,
The only reason I have not left SOM for Diamond Mind is that a friend who
owns Pursue the Pennant (hasn't upgraded) says the computer manager is
stupid, violating baseball sense and common sense (often mutually
exclusive!). Now, SOM's HAL an be stupid, but overall I think he does the
best job of any computer manager and is easiest to program. But your
sentence I clipped out below makes me think DMB has brought its computer
manager within striking distance of my tastes. Could I trouble you for more
info on the computer manager? I've read DMB 15-page manifesto already, but
I'd like to hear what a customer has to say. Or anyone else reading this post.
Thanks,
Geoff
> DMB has an excellent computer manager which will bring in the
lefty to face
>the lefty, counteract
>pinch hitters, use closers realistically, call the hit & run in appropriate
>situations, etc.
Scott R. Scherr
Geoff:
DMB 7.0 came out in late July and is the 2nd major upgrade since the name change from PTP. 7.0 was
the biggest and best upgrade yet. The computer manager is far superior to what it was in the older versions.
Keep in mind that the computer manager was not added until 4.0.
The computer is extremely smart and can do the following:
1. It will bring in a left handed pitcher to face a left handed hitter. It will counter pinch
hitting moves by changing pitchers and will pinch hit for the pinch hitter where appropriate. It will also
save the best pinch hitters for key situations late in the game.
2. The computer in National League games loves the double switch and will even do it in the middle of
an inning on occasion.
3. The computer will move a player to another position. For example, if the computer pinch hit for
the SS and only had a 3B on the bench, it will insert the 3B on the bench at 3B and move the existing 3B to SS
(assuming he plays there).
4. The Manger Profile's are set up to go 5 deep for the following relief pitchers:
1. LH Closer
2. RH Closer
3. LH Setup
4. RH Setup
5. Long
6. Mopup
5. The Manger's Profile allows you to set how often to pitchout, hold runners, pinch hit in a blow
out, pinch hit for the pitcher, pinch hit for a non-pitcher, pinch hit for a platoon hitter, bunt, hit & run,
steal, run (take the extra base), take pitches, pinch run, intentional walks, use your relievers, use your
closers, hold runners, play the infield in, guard the lines, etc.
6. You can tell the computer not to pinch hit for any hitter against left handed or right handed
pitching.
7. The computer thinks in advance and will bring in a lefty if three of the next four hitters are
left handed (or righty if vice versa).
8. In pitch-by-pitch mode with a Tom Goodwin type runner at first, the computer will throw over to
first time and time again just like in real baseball. It will hit & run in appropriate with situations and
favorable counts (i.e., 3-2 count and one out or 0-2 count and 2 outs). The pitch-by-pitch feature does not
display the tactics of your opponent. Thus, if the you throw over to 1st, you have way of knowing if the
computer intended to steal on that play.
9. You can tell the computer who to use as primary pinch hitters in order of preference against LHP
and RHP.
10. The computer will automatically adjust the lineup if players are injured or being rested.
Geoff, the 7.0 version is incredible because almost anything can happen and the interface is amazing.
For example:
1. The game is set up for interleague play.
2. If you hit & run with a runner on first and there are three balls on the batter, he will sometimes
take ball four.
3. The game has a disabled list feature, is set up for interleague play (accomodating the league's
different DH rules), and the game with a click of the mouse will set you up for postseason play.
4. The game stores the real life lineups and transactions for each season allowing you to replay the
previous season with the actual lineups and trades.
5. The game has everything ordinary and unusual. For example, it is common to have the pitcher throw
over to first and to have the first baseman leap in the air and make a great play to save the error. Catchers
frequently block balls in the dirt to prevent any advancement. Players argue a called third strike, the
umpire turns his back, and the player throws his bat into the bat rack, but doesn't get ejected. Outfielders
slip on the wet turf, but still make the catch. Shortstops bobble the ground ball, recover, and throw the
batter out. Homeruns are taken away by amazing catches (but only in parks where the fences are not too
high). The game will keep you on the edge of your seat.
DMB's creators spend hours and hours listening to actual radio broadcasts to make sure that their game
is accurate. They do their own research and read studies by other noted baseball researchers. They don't
make assumptions which are often erroneous.
6. 7.0 is an incredible improvement on the play-by-play. You never know what is going to happen by
the beginning of the play description (such as whether the defense will turn the DP, etc.). There is
nothing more concerning that watching your pitcher fall behind 3-0 with 2 outs, bases loaded in the
bottom of the ninth. There are close calls and even questionable calls. Players bunt and pull back the bat
to take the pitch. When pitchers fatigue, you can tell because they will get wild and their pitches will be
"a foot outside." The game keeps track of pitches and strikes so you can tell if someone has been wild the
whole game.
DMB has excellent customer support. Tom Tippett is the game's creator. He will personally respond to
any e-mail they receive and will listen to suggestions. There are very few bugs in DMB because it was
extensively tested. I would suggest trying their money back guarantee to see if you like it.
By the way, SOM is a good game, but its problem is that it's a board game translation that fails to
take advantage of the strength of the computer. DMB was created for the computer and takes advantage of its
ability to factor in many different things instantaneously. They also have different philosophies. For
example, Strat will determine from either the hitter's or pitcher's card that it is a "single (lf)" and then
will have a pool of play-by-play descriptions to describe the play. DMB will determine from the hitter,
pitcher, fielder, etc. where the ball goes and how it is hit which will determine the outcome of the play.
The chances of going from first to third will depend upon the throwing arm of the LF, whether your playing on
grass or turf, how hard it was hit, the speed of the runner, and where it was hit (right to the LF, down the
line, in the gap, etc.).
Let me know if you have other questions.
Scott
BPotrafka
>s
>still available. With DMB you use a system where you add your stats to the
>existing ones. Which means before each batch of new games you paly you
>have to reset the stats to 0, which means when you play your games you
>can't look at the stats build up. Which is a pain for determining
>overusage. But more importantly totally screws up the great pitcher
>fatique system (can't keep track of the batters faced if you are
>reseting the stats after each series). But this is only important for
>those who are running a play by e-mail type of league, which I don't think
>you are but I mention for anyone else reading this message.
Thats not true. When you import the stats of the most recent series if you
choose "replace" and not add, it will show you the cumulative stats.
I am commissioner, we play 2 series per week sending files back and forth
via email. If I get the latest file from the Thunder Bay Chinook, and
import it, his current up to date stats are there, pitcher fatigue is
there, everything.
Maybe you were unaware it could do this...because if you choose "add"
rather than "replace" the effect will be as you mentioned.
Brian
Ted Frank
In article <19970905042...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
>ONE question, though: Does any game offer an adjustment to compensate for
>the spreading out of the random number effect, or the dice effect, on
>statistics?
I imagine so, but I would hope not. I certainly wouldn't buy any game
that did.
>Glenn Guzzo in Strat-Fan pointed out that only about 60-70% of players
>will fall WITHIN 30 points of their average in a season: the rest are
>outside the pale of "Standard Deviation".
You *expect* only 70% of players to fall within one standard deviation of
their real stats. That's the hallmark of a good simulation.
>For instance, I recently suffered with a Brooks Robinson 1969 who hit .199
>all season, batting fifth. (He hit .234 that year.)
Not unreasonable. My Todd Hundley 1996 is suffering through a .200
season himself.
>They have altered effects for ballpark and clutch, etc. Perhaps one more
>key symbol would be to an option: to change a hit to an out, or vice versa,
>on players who you WANTED to come back to their real-life performance: in
>this case, an option might be to click on the "adjustment " feature, click
>on by individual players or by league wide stats (anyone at 90% usage or
>above who is 30 points below or above the regular average.)
I fail to see why this is desirable. Why do you want your .234 hitter to
turn into a .280 hitter when he's hitting below .200, or into a .180
hitter when he's hitting above .260?
>But in real baseball, this happens with
>every player.
No, it doesn't. Players will return to their mean, but they won't
overshoot it as a matter of course.
--
m...@radix.net "Beavis and Butt-Head. That show makes me
http://www.radix.net/~moe laugh like a drain." -- Patrick Stewart
kiagate
JEarls41
>JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
>>ONE question, though: Does any game offer an adjustment to compensate for
>>the spreading out of the random number effect, or the dice effect, on
>>statistics?
>I imagine so, but I would hope not. I certainly wouldn't buy any game
>that did.
>You *expect* only 70% of players to fall within one standard deviation of
>their real stats. That's the hallmark of a good simulation.
Really? What is the logic of that? I would think terrific simulation would
be 90% of players within 90% of their stats. I know the current
mathematical limits are about that 70% -- but I am suggesting one game
might want to do more than that.
>>They have altered effects for ballpark and clutch, etc. Perhaps one more
>>key symbol would be to an option: to change a hit to an out, or vice versa,
>>on players who you WANTED to come back to their real-life performance: in
>>this case, an option might be to click on the "adjustment " feature, click
>>on by individual players or by league wide stats (anyone at 90% usage or
>>above who is 30 points below or above the regular average.)
>
>I fail to see why this is desirable. Why do you want your .234 hitter to
>turn into a .280 hitter when he's hitting below .200, or into a .180
>hitter when he's hitting above .260?
Because I don't like to have Brooks Robinson hit .199 over a full season ,
in the prime of his career. If there is an adjustment to alter that, then
why not?
>
>>But in real baseball, this happens with
>>every player.
>
>No, it doesn't. Players will return to their mean, but they won't
>overshoot it as a matter of course.
But in real baseball, they return to their mean based on their ability,
not a series of random chances. If more players are outside the standard
deviation in any computer simulation (APBA. Strat, whatever) then in real
baseball, then an adjustment may be desirable. The dice can only too so
much,and 500-600 rolls may put too many players outside what any gamer
would consider "realism".
I am not advocating constant adjustment: I am suggesting a game could
allow some players who got off to horrible starts to find themselves and
come out with the kind of stats they put up every year.
I wonder why that isn't desirable to you?
Ted Frank
In article <19970908044...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
>>I imagine so, but I would hope not. I certainly wouldn't buy any game
>>that did.
>
>>You *expect* only 70% of players to fall within one standard deviation of
>>their real stats. That's the hallmark of a good simulation.
>
>Really? What is the logic of that? I would think terrific simulation would
>be 90% of players within 90% of their stats.
You're changing the metric. Before you were talking about standard
deviations, and now, you want "90% of their stats" -- which is a range of
40-70 BA points and even more for slugging and OBA.
First, as an initial matter, the fun of most simulations is
second-guessing the manager: what if I use the players in a different
fashion? Any "statistics-dampening" destroys this effect -- what do you
do with platoon players, who are bound to have different stats if used in
a different fashion?
Second of all, if you impose unrealistic accuracy constraints on a
simulation model, you create inaccuracies. If the luck of the draw has
Tony Gwynn hitting .330 instead of .380 in the last week of the season,
you do *not* want the model to force him to hit 1.000 that last week to
bring the season average closer to .380. You can see how that makes any
simulation more inaccurate, because Tony Gwynn is not a 1.000 hitter in
real life, no matter how bad the slump he is in.
>I know the current
>mathematical limits are about that 70% -- but I am suggesting one game
>might want to do more than that.
Strat-O-Matic Basketball does something similar with respect to player
minutes. It almost makes the game unplayable.
A game really does not want to do that.
>>I fail to see why this is desirable. Why do you want your .234 hitter to
>>turn into a .280 hitter when he's hitting below .200, or into a .180
>>hitter when he's hitting above .260?
>
>Because I don't like to have Brooks Robinson hit .199 over a full season ,
> in the prime of his career.
But he's not hitting .199. He's hitting .234 +/- the standard random
effects. You put him in the lineup on September 30, he's a .234 hitter,
just like real life. What he happened to have done the previous 400 at
bats should have no impact on the probabilities he faces in the 401st at bat.
Imagine: you're producing a computer coin-flipping simulation, and the
simulator, through the luck of the draw, produces a long run of
consecutive heads. Do you *really* want the simulator to increase the
odds that the next flip will be tails? That's the Gambler's Fallacy.
It's certainly not more "realistic" to build the fallacy into a simulation.
>>>But in real baseball, this happens with
>>>every player.
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Players will return to their mean, but they won't
>>overshoot it as a matter of course.
>
>But in real baseball, they return to their mean based on their ability,
>not a series of random chances.
You haven't distinguished between the two.
Imagine: Tony Gwynn hits a looper, and Jim Edmonds makes a spectacular
diving catch, saving what would have been a sure double. In real life,
that does *not* make Tony Gwynn more likely to get a hit next time up,
even though his stats for the season have been permanently affected.
If Larry Walker is a .320 hitter in real life, he's not going to turn
into a .280 hitter just because he had a several-month stretch where
random chance caused him to hit .400.
>If more players are outside the standard
>deviation in any computer simulation (APBA. Strat, whatever) then in real
>baseball, then an adjustment may be desirable.
But players are outside their standard deviation in real baseball, too.
>The dice can only too so
>much,and 500-600 rolls may put too many players outside what any gamer
>would consider "realism".
Just like real life.
>I am not advocating constant adjustment: I am suggesting a game could
>allow some players who got off to horrible starts to find themselves and
>come out with the kind of stats they put up every year.
>
>I wonder why that isn't desirable to you?
Because that is not realism by any stretch of the imagination.
JEarls41
>>JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
Why am I proposing a game with an internal adjustment:
>>Because I don't like to have Brooks Robinson hit .199 over a full season
, in the prime of his career.
>But he's not hitting .199. He's hitting .234 +/- the standard random
effects. You put him in the lineup on September 30, he's a .234 hitter,
just like real life. What he happened to have done the previous 400 at
bats should have no impact on the probabilities he faces in the 401st at
bat. Imagine: you're producing a computer coin-flipping simulation, and
the simulator, through the luck of the draw, produces a long run of
consecutive heads. Do you *really* want the simulator to increase the odds
that the next flip will be tails? That's the Gambler's Fallacy.
Either you are missing my point, or using the basic math to obscure the
point I am making. We all know about the Gambler's Fallacy, I think.
What you seem to not acknowledge is that simulation games present a wider
range of results than big league baseball actually does. There is some
range in big league results, but I do not believe it comes close to the
range projected in random results of 500-600 AB's. That is, there are next
to no real Brooks Robinsons hitting .199 in the prime in big league
baseball, but it happends a lot in Strat or APBA. They happen too often in
Strat or APBA, IMO, and in my experience.
>> In real baseball, they return to their mean based on their ability, not
a series of random chances.
>You haven't distinguished between the two.
I have tried for two posts. What have I been missing? What are you missing?
If I am right, and more players are outside the standard
deviation in any computer simulation (APBA. Strat, whatever) then in real
baseball, then an adjustment may be desirable.
>But players are outside their standard deviation in real baseball, too.
The question is whether the number of players affected is the same. I
would think not: not based on the math I know, not my experience with the games.
>>The dice can only too so much,and 500-600 rolls may put too many players
outside what any gamer would consider "realism".
>Just like real life.
Or, again, way MORE OFTEN than in real life, which to me is a problem
worth addressing.
>>I am not advocating constant adjustment: I am suggesting a game could
allow some players who got off to horrible starts to "find" themselves and
come out with the kind of stats they put up every year.
>>I wonder why that isn't desirable to you?
>Because that is not realism by any stretch of the imagination.
* You have not defined "realism", then, in a way that is meaningful as a
response to this post.*
You have created a hypothetical concering Gwynn I would never assert or
agree to....I would never even argue it.
I do suggest that the gamer have an *option* to "Red flag" some players
who have had the misfortune/random bad luck to underperform well below, or
well above, their real life performance. At a certain point, the gamer
would have the option to OVERCOME the limits of the dice and the random
distribution of results for players, to COMPENSATE somewhat for the
radically unrealistic results that occasionally appear on certain cards.
WHO those cards are p to the luck of the dice, and what the range of
"unrealism" is, would be up to the game offering the adjustment. It would
up to the gamer to use it or not.
This seems to me to be heightened realism , not to detract from it.
David Grabiner
m...@Radix.Net (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <19970908044...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
> JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Someone else wrote:
> >>I imagine so, but I would hope not. I certainly wouldn't buy any game
> >>that did.
> >>You *expect* only 70% of players to fall within one standard deviation of
> >>their real stats. That's the hallmark of a good simulation.
> >Really? What is the logic of that? I would think terrific simulation would
> >be 90% of players within 90% of their stats.
> You're changing the metric. Before you were talking about standard
> deviations, and now, you want "90% of their stats" -- which is a range of
> 40-70 BA points and even more for slugging and OBA.
> >>I fail to see why this is desirable. Why do you want your .234 hitter to
> >>turn into a .280 hitter when he's hitting below .200, or into a .180
> >>hitter when he's hitting above .260?
> >Because I don't like to have Brooks Robinson hit .199 over a full season ,
> > in the prime of his career.
> But he's not hitting .199. He's hitting .234 +/- the standard random
> effects. You put him in the lineup on September 30, he's a .234 hitter,
> just like real life. What he happened to have done the previous 400 at
> bats should have no impact on the probabilities he faces in the 401st at bat.
The simulation statistics do have more variability because they are
based on taking two series of samples, and I think this leads to the
perceived problem. Brooks Robinson hit .234 in 1969, while his true
ability at the time was probably .270. If you run a simulation in which
Robinson is a .270 hitter, he will hit .234 occasionally (two standard
deviations).
When you run a simulation based on the 1969 season, Robinson is set to
hit .234 for the saeson; as a result, he's just as likely to hit .198
(which he would never hit in real life) as .270.
This is an unavoidable effect of using single-season statistics as the
basis for a simulation. In theory, this could be avoided by using
long-term statistics to evaluate players, creating a card (or computer
file) for Robinson which hits .270. However, this Robinson card might
then hit .310 in 1969; the real Robinson could well have done that, but
it's inconsistent with his 1969 simulation.
--
David Grabiner, grab...@math.lsa.umich.edu (note new Email)
http://www.math.lsa.umich.edu/~grabiner (note new Web page)
Shop at the Mobius Strip Mall: Always on the same side of the street!
Klein Glassworks, Torus Coffee and Donuts, Projective Airlines, etc.
BPotrafka
>
>>JEarls41 <jear...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>ONE question, though: Does any game offer an adjustment to compensate for
>>>the spreading out of the random number effect, or the dice effect, on
>>>statistics?
I see a few problems with this idea:
1) what if a player is playing in a different field than where his stats
were created? i.e. if you have Galaraaga playing in Joe Robbie stadium you
dont want the game to "force" his stats to mirror his real-life stats.
2) The player is going to face different pitchers (especially if you are
playing in a draft league), play in different parks, and face different
defenses. The variables are going to affect what kind of year a players
has, and it should, without being tampered with.
3) This could cause a human manager to think about how much the players
have been deviating from their "real" stats and make choices based on the
knowledge that the percentages were going to be with the underperforming
players. I wouldnt like that at all.
BUT dont get me wrong, Im not blasting you or the idea totally either. I
can see how it might be useful if you were trying to replay whole seasons
with the actual teams perfectly intact.
It might be useful to have the ability to toggle this kind of thing if you
wanted to replay seasons and minimize the "luck" element.
Brian
JEarls41
David,
Thanks for your typically helpful comments.
Joe
JEarls41
Brian,
I see problems in all the areas you'd mentioned, now that you do spell
them out. I think I was ONLY thinking of season-long, "in context" replay,
with a switch on/off like the "ballpark/weather" switch or the clutch
symbols, that would be an "adjustment" roll. If Strat, for example, could
key off the current average, and allow you either mahually or league-wide
to turn the adjustment on or off, then you would add/substract, say,20-30
points from a player's average ro bring it into line for his true stats for
the season.
Maybe it would be keyed on one roll only, and maybe 20 points is enough of
an adjustment.
In the example used, Brooks Robinson "should" hit .234, but after 400
AB's, is hitting .199. I turn the switch on, and a lineout a "four" roll
turns into a SI **, so we can "Expect" him to hit .254 the rest of the way,
hoping he does "come on" to bring his performance closer t o his actual
1969 performance.
The managing strategy MIGHT involve using a player who is "due" -- one
knows this happens all the time, even if it is a weak argument statistically.
I would only invoke the switch with players who were well outside the
range of their stats, and make it optional for gamers.
It would simply adjust for the lack of accuracy the dice can give us over
a limited number of dice rolls for the % of players who are outside the
standard deviation.
Joe Earls
Christopher Green
I know that this thread has kind of reached its end, and maybe you've
already made your decision, but here's one criterion that no one else
has mentioned with regard to the DMB vs SOM debate.
I like replaying seasons from a while ago, as well as more recent
seasons, and the work that SOM puts into their past season disks is
what keeps me on board as a customer. The two games seem to me about
equal in terms of the features they offer for recent seasons (I'm
talking late 1980s to the present), but when it comes to seasons
before that, SOM has the edge, I think.
For instance, DMB gives all its players from past/historical seasons a
standard platoon adjustment for RH's vs. LH's, et cetera. But SOM
rates every player individually for their performance against RH and
LH pitchers and batters. For instance, in a DMB 1978 season, Reggie
Jackson and Chris Chambilss (both lefties) would both have their
abilities adjusted to the same degree when facing respective RH's and
LH's. But SOM gives more accuracy in this respect; in SOM, as in
real life, Reggie will hit _considerably_ better against RH's than
against LH's, whereas Chambliss's performance will not suffer so large
a differential. The RH/LH split gets even more extreme with a guy
like Graig Nettles, and more extreme still with Fred Lynn. As a
reasonably dedicated historical replayer, I'd have a hard time getting
the same amount of satisfaction from a game that gives Chris Chambliss
and Fred Lynn the same platoon adjustment.
But this is only the case with past season DMB disks; the more recent
ones have all the individual RH/LH ratings you'd expect. And I think
that DMB is getting better in this respect too -- I think that their
"deluxe" (individually RH/LH configured) historical disks now extends
back to 1985, or something like that. But still, they;ve got a ways
to go before they catch SOM in this department.
Also, SOM has a really neat trading feature that, while not perfect,
is pretty impressive. The computer GM drives a hard bargain, but it's
reasonable, and can take into account such factors as a player's age,
experience, and future value. Supposedly, the new CD ROM version
contains a feature that allows computer managed players to trade
amongst themselves and propose trades to you. That sound cool, but
I'll believe it when I see it . . . I'm a little wary of computer
teams trading players amongst themselves, for obvious reasons. But
DMB has no feature like that, which is another reason I'm sticking
with SOM for the time being.
I'm not an SOM corporate shill or anything. I think that their
customer service and tech support staff could be considered surly at
best, and think that the game design could be a little more handsome.
I played the PTP computer game before it became DMB, and liked it
quite a bit . . . if they include more features that I like (I think
the pitch-by-pitch function sounds pretty neat), I could be persuaded
to switch.
Anyway, hope this is helpful to anyone who reads it.
-- CBG
David Bonar
Christopher Green <cgr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Also, SOM has a really neat trading feature that, while not perfect,
> is pretty impressive.
After playing around with the newest demo of SOM I have to say that I
think the trading function is brain dead. It places a lot of value on
innings pitched or at bats. Thus it seems you can always come out ahead
in a draft league by trading high at bat average or worse players. In a
draft with computer teams just stock up at some position (catcher is
particularly good but everything works) and then trade your excess for
the other teams stars. The demo only has the ability to do a four team
league but I could consistantly get two scrub 1b and a scrub LF and
trade one of the first baseman + the left fielder for a star LF.
Bascially 2 10-20th round picks for one 2nd round pick and a 20th round
pick.
> The computer GM drives a hard bargain, but it's
> reasonable, and can take into account such factors as a player's age,
> experience, and future value. Supposedly, the new CD ROM version
> contains a feature that allows computer managed players to trade
> amongst themselves and propose trades to you. That sound cool, but
> I'll believe it when I see it . . . I'm a little wary of computer
> teams trading players amongst themselves, for obvious reasons. But
> DMB has no feature like that, which is another reason I'm sticking
> with SOM for the time being.
Dave
Ricky Weaver
> In article <19970831043...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
> camin...@aol.com (Caminante1) wrote:
> > Reality in baseball is depressing me, so I am thinking of returning to
> > fantasy baseball. I am looking for the best computer baseball game. I
> > used to play the Pursue the Pennant board game. I'd like a game just like
> > that on a computer. Graphics are unimportant to me. I need a game that
> > will quickly play and manage games reasonably well. A game that will keep
> > track of all the statistics. Please give me your recomendations. I have
> > Windows 95 and a fast computer.
> >
> > THanks :)
> Your ship has come in. DYNASTY League Baseball is exactly what you are
> looking for. The following review appeared in the Milwaukee Journal on
> June 19, 1997. More information can be found at http://www.designdepot.com
> The following is an excerpt from Michael Baumanšs column in the Milwaukee
> Journal:
> This Dynasty has everything, and then some
> June 19, 1997 Michael Bauman Milwaukee Journal
> For the full column visit:
> http://www.onwis.com/sports/brew/thu/baum61997.stm
> For those of us who can never stop replaying the 1982 World Series,
> there may be a solution: Dynasty League Baseball.
> In the spirit of interleague play, we sat down recently with the creator
> of this game, Michael Cieslinski, formerly of Brookfield. Cieslinski has
> relocated to
> Florida, undoubtedly in search of better baseball weather, but during a
> recent visit he was happy to preside over a rematch between the '82
> Brewers and Cardinals.
> Cieslinski, 38, is a professional in this endeavor. He previously
> developed the board game Pursue the Pennant, which was an amazingly
> lifelike representation of baseball. Dynasty League Baseball, which is
> available as both a board game and a computer game, is even better.
> Cieslinski works from a data base that the Internal Revenue Service would envy.
> It is one thing to have variables on all the basics -- hitting, pitching,
> fielding. It is another to have range, clutch hitting, injury frequency.
> It is still another to have weather conditions, umpiring tendencies, team
> chemistry.
> Win or lose, this is a terrific game. Cieslinski has done what he set out
> to do,
> which was to develop a game that somehow incorporates the multitude of nuances
> that baseball contains. You know when the starting pitcher tires. You know
> which
> hitters can be counted upon to move the runner and which cannot. You even know
> which players can be counted upon to break up that double play through
> sheer hustle.
> ... continued
Ricky Weaver
> > As far as I know, Dynasty doesn't even offer a computer manager!
> > How anyone can purchase a baseball game without this feature is beyond
> > me! Get either Diamond Mind Baseball or Strat-O-Matic. DM has the best
> > computer manager, Strat has more features and graphics. Regards
> >
> If you liked Pursue the Pennant, go with Diamond Mind Baseball, because
> that is what Pursue the Pennant is called now (it changed its name a couple
> of years ago). It definitely doesn't have the graphics (it's mostly text),
> but it seems to be the most accurate simulation I've played.
> Rob Weaver