Aging and Ratings Decline (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Sports] >> PureSim Baseball



Message

eric517 -> Aging and Ratings Decline (3/27/2006 12:56:38 AM)

I started up a new association recently and have encountered an issue with the player aging process. When players in this association hit age 30, their ratings start taking a sharp dive. Sharp enough that an all-star at age 29 is pretty much useless by age 32. There is no one in the league that is over the age of 34 and few starting position players over 30. I'm seeing careers lasting just five or six productive years (ages 25-30) and then just a complete drop-off. I just don't recall it being like this before. I don't know if this is just fluke or not. I remember a thread somewhere (but couldn't find it) that addressed this issue . . . does anyone remember this?

I am running version 1.20 . . . 16-team fictional association . . . xml file adjusted only for a slight increase in injuries . . .

I might run a test association over night to see if the results are still the same.



puresimmer -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (3/27/2006 5:29:17 AM)

While players do typically decline after age 28 it should not be as steep as what you are seeing across the board.

Let me know how the test goes.



eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (3/28/2006 2:58:28 AM)

Okay, I've spent a little more time with this and here is what I have found. In the association I started up recently (16 teams).

Position Players:
(Age, # of Players that Age, # in Majors, # in Minors)
34 1, 1, 0
33 1, 0, 1
32 7, 3, 4
Pitchers:
35 2, 1, 1
34 9, 3, 6
33 14 6, 8
32 14 9, 5

I will point out that all four position players in the majors are on my roster. They would probably not be in the majors was it not for my loyalty to my players.

I felt like in an association that I had only run for six seasons maybe I wasn't getting too good a perspective on it. So, I ran a 4-team test association that ran half seasons. After 70 seasons here is what the age breakdown looked like:

Position Players:
32 4, 2, 2
Pitchers:
32+ 13, 11, 2

First of all, I don't know if I have run enough tests to say this is an issue. Second, I have no idea what the age breakdown in real Major League Baseball looks like . . . what I am seeing in my associations may not be that far off. I could simply have run into a fluke. It seems like there is a higher percentage of productive players in MLB over the age of 32, but am I overestimating this?

I have played every version of Puresim since its inception and I can't say that I have really noticed this before, that's why I am bringing it up now. Is this something that could be tweaked in the xml?



eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/3/2006 11:43:00 PM)

Can anyone point me in the direction of where to get information about the breakdown of players by age in the major leagues? I would be interested in seeing how it compares with my Puresim results. I ran another test and it came out in a similar manner as the others. Position players continue to generally be useless by age 32. Pitchers seem to have a little more longevity. I recall having more players last a little longer than this in previous versions.



redeck -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/4/2006 2:59:24 AM)

dont see you getting alot of feedback on this, so i thought id atleast tell you that im seeing superstars last late into their 30s and some are productive in their early 40s.

that doesnt tell you much, except that people do read your post lol...



eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/6/2006 2:05:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redeck

dont see you getting alot of feedback on this, so i thought id atleast tell you that im seeing superstars last late into their 30s and some are productive in their early 40s.

that doesnt tell you much, except that people do read your post lol...


Thanks redeck! Just to give a quick update, I decided to uninstall and reinstall Puresim. In the process of doing so, something strange happened with my computer (significant icon loss on my desktop which included the folder with my copy of 1.20) so I installed v1.0. I ran three quick test associations and the age distribution seemed normal again.

My dial-up service has been giving me troubles recently, so I doubt I will be able to stay on-line long enough to download v1.21 to see what the age distribution looks like at that point. Lesson learned - make a copy of important files on disk?



Amaroq -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/6/2006 3:03:13 AM)

That's exactly my fear with the game industry's move to download-only sales.. while there's plenty of games I don't ever need to play again, the golden ones I still enjoy some old versions of: Grand Prix Legends is from 1998, and remains one of the best auto-racing sims ever; Championship Manager 01/02 is still a very fun play; Civ 2 is still enjoyable... if we really do go all download-only, how do I maintain those games for myself indefinitely? Even if I burn the install files to disk, a lot of the download solutions insist on verifying with the issuing agency.. which might have gone defunct, or stopped supporting the game, or something.



ravinhood -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/6/2006 4:15:48 AM)

Yep, that's my total reason for being against direct download and why I do not support it. Retail boxed games you always have the disc, the box and a nice printed manual that lasts longer than most of you and I will. ;) Direct download, company could go out of business, your hard-drive could go on the fritz or you have to reformat it, cd burner doesn't work thanks to things like STARFORCE heh, and you are REQUIRED to have two things to play the game, an internet connection (to register and get patches) and a burner. Some people don't have either. Shouldn't be forced to only get games from the internet only. Publishers should provide all sorts of means to obtain games. Both RETAIL and direct download. ;) EA started out as a small company and you didn't see them run off into direct download only. They've grown into a monster publication because they catered a little bit to everyone and make sure all their games hit retail shelves. Everyone should just take a lesson from them. ;)

Of all the games I own, I own the least titles of Matrixgames because they do not put them ALL on the retail shelves. It's malarky that there's no room for them, Best Buy has 100's of shelf space just wating for retail computer games. Matrixgames is just too much of a tight wad to sell all their games retail. Get rid of the suits I say and remember when you were gamers instead of money grubbers. ;)



puresimmer -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/6/2006 8:56:39 AM)

Just to be clear, you can but boxed copies of PureSim from Matrix.



Amaroq -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/6/2006 8:54:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
EA started out as a small company and you didn't see them run off into direct download only. They've grown into a monster publication because they catered a little bit to everyone and make sure all their games hit retail shelves. Everyone should just take a lesson from them. ;)

Hmm.. but EA has done a number of download-only items.

When they published Front Office Football, that was done download-only. Mondain's Legacy was a dowload-only update for Ultima Online, but at least that makes sense. Battelfield 2 has seen two download-only expansions, Euro Forces and Armored Fury.

Publishers love the download-only model, as it saves them production costs in burning CD's, making boxes, and printed manuals.. while also potentially cutting out the middle-men, the distribution houses and retail stores.



ravinhood -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/7/2006 12:16:37 AM)

See there's another reason for getting rid of direct download only. I never even heard of any of those expansions. If you don't put it in a box and put it on a shelf and in a local brick n mortar store it's just not going to be seen, so, less sales. Besides if you "give-in" to what publishers love that's just one more thing you allow them to get away with at the displeasure of the customers. First it was "buy it now, we might fix it later", now it's "buy it now direct download so we can pocket even more of your money and we might fix it later". You guys keep falling for this crap, it's time you started doing something about it and not buying direct download only products. ;)



PadresFan104 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/7/2006 3:08:27 AM)

I LOATHE brick and mortar for buying my games. EBGames and Gamestop are now mostly video games only, with little shelf space for PC games. Besides, they generally smell bad are too hot (on purpose) and the staff is very unknowledgable. And Fry's and Best Buy? Please, what a pain in the ass.

If I can buy a game via Direct Download, I am about 50% more likely to buy it due to the convenience. The box and cardboard needed for shelfspace at a store is just a waste of paper and money. The games I play right now I either bought directly from the net (PureSim, BaseBall Mogul, Second and Ten Football, GalCiv 2.), or placed an Internet order to have it shipped as Direct Download wasn't available (Diamond Mind Baseball, Rise of Nations) Most importantly, the best customer support I have ever received is from the developers who are in touch with the on-line community and are selling their games via direct download.

I've never seen anyone defend brick and mortar for pc game sales like you are. What are your thoughts on articles like this? Do you think the industry is really out to screw us, or do you think it just makes good business sense as it seems to be what a growing number of consumers (like me) want. You may be in the minority here...

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/14174279.htm

Some points from the article:

• U.S. retail sales of traditional shrink-wrapped PC games are declining. They fell to $953 million in 2005, a 36 percent drop from $1.5 billion in 2001, according to NPD Group, a market-research firm.

• Internet-related game revenues in North America, including online purchases, subscriptions and advertising, rose to $1 billion in 2005, more than six times the $160 million of 2001, according to DFC Intelligence, a game-industry research firm.

• Market analyst IDC predicts U.S. sales of PC game downloads will almost double this year to about $500 million and reach $763 million in 2007.

So if retail sales are declining, and downloads are rising, doesn't that indicate that the industry is just adjusting to the demand for more direct download sales???



ravinhood -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/8/2006 1:37:57 AM)

Nope it just means they are doing as they always have "milking the donkey" and with Direct download, getting those last extra drops, that are finger lickin good. lol Also your numbers do not reflect individual game sales vs individual game sales for the PC market. Those figures are including "subscriptions to mmorpgs" and such as well as game sales. I do not consider that part of the retail vs direct download part of the equation. Direct download is more convienent, but, that is where it ends for me. I prefer to have tangible products. Something that I own and can touch and put in storage for years and years. There are too many variables involved with direct download where a person ends up losing out. Read even a few here with getting games registered, "no refund" is one of the biggest issues (yep, there's still a few places that take back opened software before 7 days is up). A "minority" you say? HAHA $900+ million in brick and mortar sales is nothing to laugh or sneeze at either. I'd say game for game wise it's till ahead of direct download of games. (excluding online based subscription based games). It may or may not pan out, if security on the internet keeps getting worse as it has been in the past several years, people aren't going to be as likely to toss their credit card numbers around the net anymore. Until there is a more direct enforcement of security on the internet, brick n mortar will continue to reign. ;)



puresimmer -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/8/2006 2:37:49 AM)

Ravin,

I have to totally disagree with you. The entire fact that an indie like myself can publish and sell a game online is a huge breakthrough. Previously there would have been absolutely zero chance you would have heard of PureSim. Ironically, we woudln't be having this discussion, because you would not even know PureSim existed :) Do you think Matrix would have taken a chance on PureSim if the only possible distribution mechanism was retail? No way.

Online distribution benefits the *developers* just as much as the publishers -- huge amounts of money is saved since we don't have to give massive cuts to the middle man, and the retailer etc. Hence, PureSim costs $29.99 instead of $49.99 which is what it would take to make retail even close to economically feasible -- thus, the consumer benefits as well.

This allows innovative/niche developers to take a chance on what previously would have been scorned by the sequel-minded brick and mortar distribution channels.

IMO, online/Direct Download distribution will be ubiquitous within 3-5 years. It's not the same market, but I'd say ITunes' success is certainly a leading indicator.

Hope that wasn't too "soap-boxy," just figured I'd weigh in. Regardless, thanks for supporting the game.

Shaun







Beach23BoyP -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/8/2006 3:17:27 AM)

quote:

IMO, online/Direct Download distribution will be ubiquitous within 3-5 years. It's not the same market, but I'd say ITunes' success is certainly a leading indicator.


Every time I go to the software store I see more and evidence of the death of PC games. PC Sports sims are all but gone. I agree, Direct Downloads are the only way PC games will survive.

The entire distribution thing is kind of strange. Years and years ago Apple II beat TI Instruments and Commodore strickly because no one wanted "console games". Piracy of software actually helped Apple II win those old wars and then IBM came along and all but destroyed Apple's gaming market.

Now the consoles are winning! Strange -- but the "free market" can never be predicted!




DonBraswell -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/8/2006 6:45:40 AM)

Eric517, I agree with you. After age 30 my stars are washed up. There is a very slight decline after age 28, but after age 30 their career is over. I have had a hand full make it to age 34 on my team. When it happens it's like night and day. 32 hr, 91 rbi & .302 ba then the next year 6 hr, 21 rbi & .217 ba. I have kept more than a few around for a few seasons thinking they would bounce back, but they never do.



eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/10/2006 8:12:03 PM)

Yes, DonB, that pretty well sums it up.

I had a rare good and consistent internet connection last night and downloaded 1.21. I ran a test association this morning and again ran into the same problem. After 22 seasons there were no active players in the league over the age of 32. 1.00 doesn't seem to have this problem.



Amaroq -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/10/2006 9:43:21 PM)

Way to bring the thread back on-topic, guys!

If this is correct, I can only hope Shaun's got it sorted in the 2006 code base.

Can those of you experiencing this talk a bit more about what you're seeing?

- Real players, or fictional? (eric's original post says fictional, just wondering if its across-the-board)

- When their ratings drop, how much of a drop are we talking on a per-year basis?

- Any modifications to .XML file, or are we talking straight-out-of-the-box?



eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/10/2006 10:49:25 PM)

Amaroq: Here's how I can answer your questions at this point:

I have only experimented with fictional. I don't have the right copy of the Lahman Database right now. I may get that tonight and see what happens.

The first time I noticed this issue I was using an xml file modified only for a slight increase in injuries. On my test runs it was the stock xml.

I need some more time for getting information together regarding exact numbers in the ratings drops.

I accept the fact that an increase in age results in a decrease of ratings. I am acceptant, too, that different players are going to go downhill more quickly than others. But to see an association with no position players of any value over the age of 32 seems a bit extreme. There doesn't appear to be any (yes, a strong word to use) or at least very little variation in this.

One thing I have noticed in 1.20 and now 1.21 is that the problem appears to be with position players only. I haven't had cause for alarm with pitchers suffering.

One of the results of this is your statistical leaders don't have enough of a playing career to reach some of the milestones one would expect the hall of fame players to have reached.

Finally, when it comes to testing, I'm not the most experienced person in the world, so any advice on how to test, what to look for, etc. I will be happy to take. I have simply been running a 4-team association with a 40 game schedule.



Amaroq -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/10/2006 11:45:17 PM)

Thanks - obviously, the more data you can offer the better, but it sounds like this should be very reproducible on Shaun's end.

4-team, 5-game schedule is generally accepted as the quickest way to test player development over long terms if you have no care for the generated stats, and want only to see the ratings model. (Or salary model).

4-team, 40-game sounds like an interesting stats compromise.

One thing I worry about is confounding variables playing havoc with the 4-team association - e.g., if the number of 'good' young players per season is (c * T) + a, where T is the number of teams, and a and c are constants, 'a' might become a significant number compared to (c * T) for the 4-team association only. (Thus, good young players might be pushing older players out of the association, and/or pushing the scale upwards.) So, you might want to test 16-team, 5-game schedule, as this should eliminate that as a confounding variable while still retaining speed-of-processing.

When I've tested in the past, I've tended to leave the computer unattended/on either when I go to bed, or when I leave for work, letting it run through 8+ hours of simulation before I check back with it.



eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/12/2006 2:30:02 AM)

Well, I was able to do another test run today with a 16-team, 40-game, 35-man roster association. In the 50th season, there were no position players in the league older than 33. There were 3 33-year-olds and 9 32-year-olds that were on a major league roster. For pitchers on active major league rosters: 36 (1), 35 (1), 34 (7), 33 (10), 34 (17). It seems a little low for position players.

When looking at hall of fame players, the careers look fine. Again, the ages may be on the average a little lower but it does look like there are a select few (14) that played beyond the age of 35.

I don't know what this all really means. Based on my experience, I would say that the number of older players is less than what might happen in real life. Of course, I have no studies in front of me that would reveal what a typical age distribution really is. Previous versions of Puresim seemed to have a different look to them when it comes to this issue.



puresimmer -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/12/2006 7:05:39 AM)

I'll have a look. I honestly can't remember making any changes in that area, but obviously you are seeing something different from the past.

Thanks for taking the time to post the info.




eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/13/2006 5:11:49 PM)

Thanks for taking a look at this!




DonBraswell -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/14/2006 5:56:59 AM)

Amaroq, All I ever play are fictional leagues. Todays real players have really turned me off. Player decline in my league effects both pitchers and position players. I don't what has changed in the game. I never change the xml execpt lowering injuries slightly.
Don



puresimmer -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/14/2006 1:28:50 PM)

I have made some tweaks to the career arc that should smooth this out a little. I am off work today so I am going to run a v1.21 vs 2006 test with the same league and see if the tweaks made an appreciable difference.




eric517 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/23/2006 10:55:17 PM)

Looking forward to 2006 and was wondering where this issue stands with the new version. Betatesters . . . have any of you looked at this issue in your tests so far?



lynchjm24 -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/24/2006 12:18:13 AM)

Because you asked I'm in the process of running a PS 2006 league 20 years into the future and I'll let you know what I find.



Amaroq -> RE: Aging and Ratings Decline (4/24/2006 8:52:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: eric517

Looking forward to 2006 and was wondering where this issue stands with the new version. Betatesters . . . have any of you looked at this issue in your tests so far?


It felt like it was still an issue with Alpha_1, but that was a subjective thing, lacking statistical analysis or a significant sample size. Shaun's made a lot of progress since then, so I'd rather withhold comment about the current state.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375