🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <920521230...@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Edward K Jen <ej...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>It's the bottom of the fifth.  Toronto vs. Detroit.  And the score?
>               R    H    E
>Toronto       31    43   1
>Detroit        1     6   3
>
>BTW, I'm Toronto and the computer is Detroit.
>
>Hardball III has potential, but has MAJOR playability and realism problems.
>
>For example:

Thanks for the info.  This is the kind of thing that is sorely lacking
in magazine reviews.  Granted, they probably can't put the effort in
that the public does

I bought Road to the Final Four and quickly realized it had similar
problems.  Teams hit 75% or so of their shots (in all modes).

I've read reviews in CGW and PC Mag that say the stat models in EWBBII,
Larussa, Hardball, etc are comparable to Strat-o-matic, Pursue the
Pennant, etc.  I bet they never tried to play a season with those
games.  Based on my experience with EWBBII and your comments on HBIII,
I doubt any of these graphics games compares in stat realism to the
text-based games.  Oh yeah, Microleague TMC also fails, but more in
computer manager use of players than the stats per se.

>- The computer is an IDIOT on defense.  It also seems to base pitching 
>substitions solely on pitch count (meaning that Detroit's starting pitcher got 
>SHELLED for about 35 hits and 25 earned runs before being replaced in the top 
>of the fifth.

Again, I haven't seen a good computer manager yet in any EWBB, TMC,
whatever.  Hopefully PtP's manager isn't brain-dead.  I bet it does the
job.
Typical things I've seen in EWBB:
Weaver suggests you pull the pitcher who is getting hammered, if you ask
him.  Yet that team IS computer managed, and doesn't take out the
starter.
Once it takes out the starter, it plays musical relievers.  Often ends
up having to use a postion player on the mound.
Pinch hits a righty bum for righty Rickey Henderson.
Replaces a lefty hitter with a righty to face a righty.
Whats going on here?

In Microleague TMC, the computer guards the lines in late innings
with a 2+ run lead.  Wrong!!  Guarding the lines is a one run strategy.
It also almost never stole.  The '75 Sox stole ZERO bases in 162 games.

So in summary, get these games if you want fun play, not stat realism
or intelligent managers.

What I would want in a game like these:
Only let pitchers throw curveballs, not screwballs (unless they actually
do).  How about knuckleballs for Candiotti and Hough.
Have the computer player adversely affected by hard throwers.
Really have the players stats (power etc) combine with the quality
of your swing to determine result.  So no homers by Ozzie now matter
how well you swing.  Homers by Canseco occasionally on mediocre swings.
Computer position fielders depending on count and type of pitcher.

Just a few thoughts.

In article <1992May22....@newshost.lanl.gov> mas...@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) writes:
>In article <920521230...@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Edward K Jen <ej...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>>It's the bottom of the fifth.  Toronto vs. Detroit.  And the score?
>>               R    H    E
>>Toronto       31    43   1
>>Detroit        1     6   3
>>
>I've read reviews in CGW and PC Mag that say the stat models in EWBBII,
>Larussa, Hardball, etc are comparable to Strat-o-matic, Pursue the
>Pennant, etc.  I bet they never tried to play a season with those
>games.  Based on my experience with EWBBII and your comments on HBIII,
>I doubt any of these graphics games compares in stat realism to the
>text-based games.  Oh yeah, Microleague TMC also fails, but more in
>computer manager use of players than the stats per se.
>
>>- The computer is an IDIOT on defense.  It also seems to base pitching 
>>substitions solely on pitch count (meaning that Detroit's starting pitcher got 
>>SHELLED for about 35 hits and 25 earned runs before being replaced in the top 
>>of the fifth.
>
>Again, I haven't seen a good computer manager yet in any EWBB, TMC,
>whatever.  Hopefully PtP's manager isn't brain-dead.  I bet it does the
>job.
>Typical things I've seen in EWBB:
>Weaver suggests you pull the pitcher who is getting hammered, if you ask
>him.  Yet that team IS computer managed, and doesn't take out the
>starter.
>Once it takes out the starter, it plays musical relievers.  Often ends
>up having to use a postion player on the mound.
>Pinch hits a righty bum for righty Rickey Henderson.
>Replaces a lefty hitter with a righty to face a righty.
>Whats going on here?
>
>In Microleague TMC, the computer guards the lines in late innings
>with a 2+ run lead.  Wrong!!  Guarding the lines is a one run strategy.
>It also almost never stole.  The '75 Sox stole ZERO bases in 162 games.
>
>So in summary, get these games if you want fun play, not stat realism
>or intelligent managers.
>
>What I would want in a game like these:
>Only let pitchers throw curveballs, not screwballs (unless they actually
>do).  How about knuckleballs for Candiotti and Hough.
>Have the computer player adversely affected by hard throwers.
>Really have the players stats (power etc) combine with the quality
>of your swing to determine result.  So no homers by Ozzie now matter
>how well you swing.  Homers by Canseco occasionally on mediocre swings.
>Computer position fielders depending on count and type of pitcher.
>
>Just a few thoughts.

Now that some of the glamore has wore off the graphics-based baseball
simulations, let's talk about potential realism.  APBA has released a
new version of their baseball game that allows programming of the
managers actions.  No, not just the cheesy 0-5 setting, but actual expert
system programming.  You tell the computer the rules that you want your
team coached by.  If your pitcher gives up 35 runs and 50 hits prior to
your relieving him, It's your own fault.  You only want your pitcher to
throw curveballs.  Then program it.  What only knuckleballs to Candiotti
and Hough?  Program it.  This game has real potential in the field of
arm-chair coaches.  No more can you blame your teams mental mistakes on
the computer.  It was you who gave them their brains.  Granted, the game
still has the computer coach, but you can program it too.  This may 
eliminate the senseless calls that it makes.

APBA is still the leader in statistical realism and league replayibility
(with PtP closing the gap daily).  With the addition of a externally
programable coach, your true coaching skills and knowledge of baseball
should shine through (or fade away).

I have no interests in APBA other than the respect they earned through
the play of their games.  The bottom line is:  If you want to *really*
coach a baseball team, then APBA has the answer (for a mere $100+ as
was pointed out a couple of days ago).

Bill Lechner
w...@pmafire.inel.gov

In article <1992May22....@newshost.lanl.gov> mas...@beta.lanl.gov (David A. Masten) writes:
[stuffs about reality problems with Hard Ball III and Earl Weaver deleted]

	I played Hard Ball I on my Apple IIc, HB II on my Mac and now am
playing III on my 386.  I also played EWB I on my Mac and EWB II on the 
386.  What I noticed was that HB always kept its arcade feeling.  It didn't
matter whether I was playing I, II or III.  The stats were always irrelevant.
I mastered HB I so that I was able to beat computer every time I played it.
I never did master II because I just could not play with keyboard on my
Mac.  HB III is tough on defense without joystick, but I already mastered 
hitting on keyboard.  The moral of the story is that HB series is *not* a
stat-oriented series.  Never was, never will be.  I don't care how much
Accolade claims about the importance of stats, if I can consistently beat
a pitcher by pure timing with a .150 hitter, the stats become irrelevant.

	EWB was a different story.  When I was playing EWB I on my Mac, it
was my favorite game because it really looked real.  I was playing Toronto,
and had the computer go through all other teams.  Granted, the stats for
Toronto was rather strange since I got the hang of hitting, but the computer
controlled stats were realistic.  In that season, Kevin Mitchell was ripping
the NL apart in HR.  Also, Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire had some pretty good
stats, even though I pitched against them.  The moral of the story is that
EWB did incorporate stats into its playing more than HB.  I'm not claiming
that EWB is as statistically accurate as Pursue the Pennant.  But for all
baseball enthusiasts out there, take HB with a grain of salt if you are 
looking for a stat-oriented game, a *big* grain of salt.  If you can find
an old copy of EWB for Mac, then you don't have to take as big a grain.

-- 
T. H. Brian Chung                   | These are my opinions.  If you want them,
J...@ALCHEMY.TN.CORNELL.EDU          | you will have to fight me for them.
211_Linden_Ave_#19_Ithaca_NY_14850  | "Here I am, here I remain."
(607) 254-0440                      |                       -Duke Leto Atreides 

In article <920521230...@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Edward K Jen <ej...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> writes:
>
>Hardball III has potential, but has MAJOR playability and realism problems.
>
>For example:
>
>- A strong-armed left-fielder can gun down a batter at first base most of the
>time.  A weak-armed right fielder can also do it if the batter is of slow or 
>medium speed.  There is a serious disproportionality between speed and arm
>strength of different players.

Actually, that is quite realistic.  In a pre-season game, Toronto Blue Jays
pitcher Jimmy Key got that treatment!

In article <1992May22.1...@pmafire.inel.gov> w...@pmafire.inel.gov (William Lechner) writes:
>
>Now that some of the glamore has wore off the graphics-based baseball
>simulations, let's talk about potential realism.  APBA has released a
>new version of their baseball game that allows programming of the
>managers actions.  No, not just the cheesy 0-5 setting, but actual expert
>system programming.  You tell the computer the rules that you want your
>team coached by.  If your pitcher gives up 35 runs and 50 hits prior to
>your relieving him, It's your own fault.  You only want your pitcher to
>throw curveballs.  Then program it.  What only knuckleballs to Candiotti
>and Hough?  Program it.  This game has real potential in the field of
>arm-chair coaches.  No more can you blame your teams mental mistakes on
>the computer.  It was you who gave them their brains.  Granted, the game
>still has the computer coach, but you can program it too.  This may 
>eliminate the senseless calls that it makes.

First, thanks for the input Bill.

(1) I've heard its a real bitch to program it.  Whats your experience?
    And how much extra does it cost?  

(2) I don't think it would matter what pitches you program.  Unless they
    radically changed the game APBA doesn't work on a pitch by pitch
    basis. What I was considering really only pertains to you-play
    games. Where you as the hitter try to guess what pitch is coming.
    And the pitcher tries to outguess you.  In the typical game, you
    just choose one and the pitcher chooses another.  But in real life,
    hitters and pitchers have their strengths.  So you guess fastball
    with Dibble on the mound.  He may cross you up with a change, but
    his change would be that of an ordinary pitcher.  Actually this
    could work in a text-based game, but it would have to be a pitch
    by pitch game.  And you'd have to rate every pitcher for each pitch
    type (maybe just a modifier to his overall stats).  This would get
    real complex in a hurry.  But it would be hot!

>APBA is still the leader in statistical realism and league replayibility
>(with PtP closing the gap daily).  With the addition of a externally
>programable coach, your true coaching skills and knowledge of baseball
>should shine through (or fade away).

Is it really good in realism?  I only played a few games and got a no-
hitter by '90 Clemens (ok, he did have a 1.93 ERA that year), plus a 
few 1,2,3 hitters by other top pitchers.  I didn't have the stat
compiler so I can't say overall how the stats come out.  But it seemed
like it favors pitchers.  Anyone have long term experience?

I once played a 30 game schedule (NL East only) with PtP.  So thats
180 team-games overall.  The summed team stats came out very realistic
except steals.  I stole about twice as much with a high success rate.  I
think PtP has adjusted this as I noticed a lower success and steal rate
in the few games I've played since.

>I have no interests in APBA other than the respect they earned through
>the play of their games.  The bottom line is:  If you want to *really*
>coach a baseball team, then APBA has the answer (for a mere $100+ as
>was pointed out a couple of days ago).

One more example how some of these games go half way is infield/outfield
shading (actually APBA and PtP don't have this).  The brain-dead 
manager in EWBBII usually beats me (says a lot for my managing, huh)!
I think one reason is that it probably uses the "correct" depth and
shading for each of my hitters.  I say "correct" as there is no
adjustment for pitcher type, count, or whether the hitter is pull/
straight away/opposite field.  In real baseball you would account
for all these.  On a 0-2 count with Cone on the mound, you would
no longer play a pull hitter to pull.  Actually bad example, the
Mets stick their OF's in one place and never move them!  But you 
can see how complex this all can get if you want a realistic sim.
In summary, I don't think any game will give a real feel for true
managing.
A game that took all this into account would be hot.  But could they
sell enough to justify the effort/cost?

Dave Masten