|
Amaroq -> RE: Is it time to break up the dynasty? (8/10/2006 1:45:27 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BauerPower
I like a lot of your ideas, they would be more effective than mine. How do you crank down your team's financials? Is that done in the XML?
It's really too bad that we have to apply all these house rules because these games are sold as "be like a real life GM, signing free agents and swinging deals to improve your team and win the World Series." We should be trying to win, not putting up a bunch of barriers so we don't win. But I guess any game vs a computer AI is pretty much the same. It's in facing human GMs that these games get interesting. Are there any good leagues going on right now w/ puresim?
"Edit Region" button, I think, from the Front Office screen.
I can understand your feeling about house rules. I've been playing in the genre for years, and I haven't found a game that doesn't require *some* amount of house rules. I think part of the problems are a push-pull between 'realism' and 'competitiveness'. It is difficult enough to make a 'competitive' AI, but as soon as you do, people start complaining that it is 'unrealistic' because - for instance - the AI stops overpaying for players as much as real-world teams do. When people don't see the financial numbers they expect, you start getting "There's no player in my league earning more than $8M - there should be some players demanding $10-18M!" complaints. 'Fixing' those leads to less competitiveness - and we clever human players exploit the holes.
And in fact, in 'real life', a GM winds up with 'house rules'. The Giants, for example, have a 'pay Barry' house rule consuming tons of their payroll. Think of Steinbrenner's effect on the Yankees' GM, or of the Red Sox 'must counter anything the Yankees do' house rule.
In fact, I think we'll get our 'best' AI if we start creating wildly differing AI's - I want some GM's looking for OBP, some for AVG, some for SLG, some for HR's, some for speed+defense. Others might look at ratings such as Contact, Power, or Eye. In fact, if the 'park' informed that, so the Rockies were looking for HR hitters, and a team with a short right-field porch would pursue left-handed sluggers, that would add a ton to the game. Better, it means that for any player out there, there is one or two GM's who are interested in him. Some might be 'frugal', with others 'spendy'. Rather than having all of the teams roughly value the players at the same level, leading to bidding wars for one player and little interest in another, there would be more interest around every big-league capable player.
I think that would also help the trading situation.
Even better, we might see AI GM's with different overall strategies: you might have some who try to build from within (A's), others who try to build through money (Yankees), and others who try to build from trade (Reds?). You might even get 'sellers' like the Pirates, who try to milk the most value in return for players.
|
|
|
|
