CPU vs CPU fans unite.

[shadia147]

Just for the sake of argument;

We would need 30 guys. No ghost teams.
I think everyone would have to be a GM, letting the CPU make lineup changes etc.
Think about it, there needs to be a separation of duties between your Manager and your GM, how else could you fire yourself?
It'd be nice if tactics played into who you named as Manager.
And,,, If you WERE the GM, you just might miss a game or two of your MLB team while scouting a Minor League prospect or a player in the other league. A manager almost never misses a game unless it's sickness or death. This would allow for the missed games rule online.
We would have to come to a consensus as to whose sliders are locked in before season begins.
I pretty much think a Commissioner would be named that would handle that duty.

Now, I have a question...Lets say this was possible. How would I, living in Cincinnati, and say Ralphieboy living elsewhere, manage to see the same game (ON OUR HD TVs!) at the same time, accessing our PS3's without being able to change our sliders or lineups?

BTW, if SCEA is listening, I kinda think we've stumbled on the perfect use of the Vita with this.

[shadia147]

I mentioned the GM/Manager conflict of interest... Here's why I'm saying this;
If one guy is home and gets to "Manage" his team, while the other guy is at work or unavailable, so he can't "Manage" his team that night, it would create a huge problem and unfair balance.
It would be more "Fair", not necessarily more "Fun", if managing was just kept out of the equation altogether.
It would be great to do both, but I just don't think that'd be feasible.
So given the pragmatic choice of EVERYONE being a Manager OR a GM, I just think GM for everyone is the only realistic way to go.
Again, It's be great if we lived in a perfect universe. But alas...

[shadia147]

Geez, I can't help myself.
An online league really should schedule games according to their starting times on the schedule. All the 7:00 games should play simultaneously at 7:00 EST etc.
Then you should have the option of which game you wish to view at that time.
If I understood Nomo, it sounds to me like there's a vertical order to the games being played as opposed to a horizontal grid where multple games could be happening at the same time.
I guess the online system devs have enough on their plate already without me adding this suggestion.

[nomo17k]

Shadia -- currently "online league" is basically a format to play games between HUMs, so I don't think it's designed for CPU vs. CPU games. A CPU can be assigned to be responsible for a team, but I don't think you can make them actually *play* (the commissioner can only *sim* games, iirc).

Basically I want the mode to be expanded so that I'm only responsible for GM duties, and not actually play. (I actually do want to play myself, but now with 4 wives in different parts of the world and 13 kids with 4 grandchildren (with another one coming down the pipe), finding time to be online is an issue for me).

The only component missing (well the franchise elements are missing as well but...) right now to make it possible is the ability to let CPU take over the game playing, either against another HUM online player or CPU-managed team.

This doesn't have to be an entirely new mode. Maybe just allowing gamers and commissioner to let CPU control the team for any given game at the beginning. Or add an option for HUM to manage, etc.

That sort of apparently little (but not necessarily simple under-the-hood) enhancement is what I'm talking about as the starting point.

[ralphieboy11]

While this is not actually cpu vs. cpu, I would like the ability to manage a game against someone else. To actually match wits with someone regarding pinch hitters, pitch outs, steals, when to bring in the lefty or righty, all that stuff.

I think that would be fun.

Plus I could take care of both team's decisions when playing alone.

Right now watching cpu vs. cpu is fun, but the decision making leaves a little to be desired. I've seen enough double switches to last a lifetime. Grrrr.

[gtm]

I'm just checking in as I too am only a cpu vs cpu (watcher). My major problem is playing default or finding a right set of sliders. I hear alot that is you want the players ratings to play out, then you play default. In this case stats are way out of preportion. As for sliders, you never can get the right balance game after game. This scenerio burns me out and put the game away for trade-in the next year. Yes, we need a cpu/cpu club here at OS...

[Heroesandvillains]

Quote: Originally Posted by gtm

I'm just checking in as I too am only a cpu vs cpu (watcher). My major problem is playing default or finding a right set of sliders. I hear alot that is you want the players ratings to play out, then you play default. In this case stats are way out of preportion. As for sliders, you never can get the right balance game after game. This scenerio burns me out and put the game away for trade-in the next year. Yes, we need a cpu/cpu club here at OS...

I hear you, so here are a few thoroughly tested tweaks.

Fielding Errors 7
SB Frequency 7

From there, the other stats are remarkably close to the most current 3 year MLB averages.

Check out Tgreer's CPU thread over in the sliders area. There we have results of 191 games on Default.

If the SO's bother you (and honestly, they are SO close!!!), you could possibly drop Contact and/or Timing a click.

And I've found my BB's per game to be higher than our testing indicates. But essentially it's off (our Default testing) approximately 0.10 BB's per team per game. That's damn close (if I recall correctly). This game is incredibly balanced statistically on Default.

Check the thread for youself considering the two changes mentioned above need to be made.

[gtm]

Quote: Originally Posted by heroesandvillians

I hear you, so here are a few thoroughly tested tweaks. Fielding Errors 7 SB Frequency 7 From there, the other stats are remarkably close to the most current 3 year MLB averages. Check out Tgreer's CPU thread over in the sliders area. There we have results of 191 games on Default. If the SO's bother you (and honestly, they are SO close!!!), you could possibly drop Contact and/or Timing a click. And I've found my BB's per game to be higher than our testing indicates. But essentially it's off (our Default testing) approximately 0.10 BB's per team per game. That's damn close (if I recall correctly). This game is incredibly balanced statistically on Default. Check the thread for youself considering the two changes mentioned above need to be made.

Thanks heroesandvillians. Sounds good.

[shadia147]

Ok guys, we have to be careful not to turn this into a slider thread,
I almost posted my sliders here, but caught myself.
We do need a CPU vs CPU forum for basically all the games. I think there's enough of us. I'd like to compare my results to every one elses.
I will post my sliders (Slight variation of Nomos) in the slider forum. Just doing a bit more observation. Had a game last night that threw off the curve. Made me doubt myself.
I think what we need, is for everyone who does CPU vs CPU to post whatever set they're using, including gameplay settings on one single thread.
I think the slider project was a great idea. But I still see that everyone still has their own version of sliders. Nomo's using of statistics and the super human effort he put into it was phenomonal.
Yet, even with his accuracy inside the numbers, his sliders (IMO) still had gaps where you saw things you shouldnt see on a micro (pitch by pitch)management basis.
I.E. The super human throwing arms of the shortstops and third basemen.
I'm thinking that perhaps instead of analysing the game, if we just made a spreadsheet of everyone's CPU vs CPU sliders, we'd start to see patterns.
If we looked at ten sets, and nine of them have injuries at 5, and one at 6, the obvious thing would be to assume the former, but then research the latter. Maybe that one guy has something.
At this point, I think analyzing Slider sets would be simpler than analyzing 100 games at different slider settings.. Because we've all basically seen how the game functions, it's just a matter of preference at this point.
..the objective should to end up with one definitive slider set in which if you was comparing your results to anothers, it;d be everyone comparing apples to apples . We wouldnt have this question of who has the best set.
Really, if we could access the Devs or play-testers, I'm pretty sure they' arrived at a slider constant, perhaps default, so they could test the game before it hit the stores. But even testing at default, at what level? What variations, and did play-testing look at as many samples as we have?

[shadia147]

BTW, I'm going high on the injury slider; My reasoning is as follows;
There's a nice list of well known ballplayers on the Free Agent list.
I'm figuring that if I handle injuries correctly, that I'll see most if not all of those FAs eventually end up with a contract somewhere by the end of the season. The only way I see the CPU signing those players is if there are enough injuries to deplete the replacement pool in the minors.
The question is... Does the CPU use a FA former MLB player with decent ratings to replace your veteran third baseman who's out the rest of the year, or does the CPU dip so deep into your AA program that it has some 18 yr old with half the ratings and bats .120?
At what point does the CPU switch from using Call-Ups to seeking FAs?

The other thing is that I'd like to see constant movement between the Majors and Minors by the CPU. Again, I think having a lot of injuries achieves this in theory.
. Sure, I could do this manually. I want the CPU to be able to handle this on Auto.
And I'm not talking about ONE Franchise, I'm speaking for all 30 teams handling things consistantly.