Is Puresim 2007 too easy to win?

[verizon32]

Is Puresim too easy to win so far with latest patch?

Other forums, people are saying Puresim 2007 is too easy.

What you guys think so far?

[KG Erwin]

In a word, no. How do you define win?  In simming?   Try managing your team on the field -- in that case, it isn't so easy. 
 
Try a real historical team  --no, it isn't so easy. 
 
This game is so open -ended that it leaves itself vulnerable to criticism from new players who don't bother to explore its depth and its possibilities. 
 
A superficial visitation of this game can offer nothing more than scratching the surface. 

[KG Erwin]

ORIGINAL: verizon32

Is Puresim too easy to win so far with latest patch?

Other forums, people are saying Puresim 2007 is too easy.

What you guys think so far?

Which forums? I'm ready to pay them a visit. Give me some links.

[verizon32]

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

ORIGINAL: verizon32

Is Puresim too easy to win so far with latest patch?

Other forums, people are saying Puresim 2007 is too easy.

What you guys think so far?

Which forums? I'm ready to pay them a visit. Give me some links.

ootp forum
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/s ... stcount=10

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/s ... stcount=11

[KG Erwin]

OOTP? No, not going there. Would be counterproductive.   Both games have positive attributes, and I'm not about to get sucked into a comparison war.   That's not what this community is about, OK?  [;)]  

[JimboJ]

I agree the game is easy to win as a manager, because of things like the fact that I am able to execute a double switch and the CPU manager isn't.  I'm not saying I win every game, but things like that point out that the CPU is not as difficult to beat as it could be. 

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: JimboJ

I agree the game is easy to win as a manager, because of things like the fact that I am able to execute a double switch and the CPU manager isn't.  I'm not saying I win every game, but things like that point out that the CPU is not as difficult to beat as it could be. 

Once again exuse my ignorance but a double switch is...???

[henry296]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: JimboJ

I agree the game is easy to win as a manager, because of things like the fact that I am able to execute a double switch and the CPU manager isn't.  I'm not saying I win every game, but things like that point out that the CPU is not as difficult to beat as it could be. 

Once again exuse my ignorance but a double switch is...???

Most often a double switch is pinch hitting for the pitcher and leaving that player in the game and placing the pitcher in the batting order position of the position of the player who pinch hit. Usually done when that position play makes last out or also bats in the inning.

For example, pinch hit using backup shortstop. Leave shortstop in game and place pitcher in leadoff spot (where original shortstop batted). The advantage is making it take longer to get back to the pitcher in the batting order.

[akcranker]

I wouldn't say it's too easy to win... I'm managing the Tampa Bay Devil Rays and I'm struggling to stay over .500

[lynchjm24]

ORIGINAL: verizon32

Is Puresim too easy to win so far with latest patch?

Other forums, people are saying Puresim 2007 is too easy.

What you guys think so far?

You know the board has made it when either JB Magic, or a JB Magic knock-off shows up.

[sposfan]

[/quote]

You know the board has made it when either JB Magic, or a JB Magic knock-off shows up.
[/quote]

LOL, i feel so privileged! I get an "inside" joke! <G>

[tbear2b]

It's not too easy to win. You can win at it, without having to spend endless hours, which some people find attractive and others want more of a challenge in terms of scouting, analyzing, etc. to be able to get a team above .500.

It also depends on what you do. If you play with a bad team, it will be hard to win. If you play with a good team, it will be easy to win. You make the game tougher, really. It's the nice thing about sports games. Usually, if you play as a crappy team, you can make it more of a challenge.

[Woodruff]

I find this thread fascinating because frankly...I'm having the opposite problem. In a 24-team league, the best I've been able to finish is 4th in my six-team division.

Granted, I was using version 1.10 (not the latest, as has been mentioned in this thread), but does the winning-capability change THAT much?

Plus, I play as a manager, but "simming everything" and making roster/lineup changes only at the end of each week (or when an injury happens).

[JimboJ]

Of course if the computer's team is more talented than yours, it will be difficult to beat.  I'm talking about when the teams are equal.  The computer manager needs to learn to "think ahead" when making strategy decisions (eg. making double switches, taking into account who's on deck when issuing intentional walks, etc.), things that I, as a human, am smart enough to do (and believe me, I'm no genius .   As long as I have that advantage over the computer, it will be too easy to beat IMO.

If they can do it with chess, they can do it with baseball.  I'm just saying we need to keep pushing Shaun to make the AI smarter.

[tbear2b]

Agreed. AI can always get better. I think, however, that at this point it is certainly no push over, even when things are equal.

[verizon32]

ORIGINAL: JimboJ

Of course if the computer's team is more talented than yours, it will be difficult to beat. I'm talking about when the teams are equal. The computer manager needs to learn to "think ahead" when making strategy decisions (eg. making double switches, taking into account who's on deck when issuing intentional walks, etc.), things that I, as a human, am smart enough to do (and believe me, I'm no genius . As long as I have that advantage over the computer, it will be too easy to beat IMO.

If they can do it with chess, they can do it with baseball. I'm just saying we need to keep pushing Shaun to make the AI smarter.

I agree.

[puresimmer]

I'm not sure if you guys are implying that I am not always doing this, because I am. The AI is actually pretty good as it is, and I agree with a little work in the double switch area it will be even better.

AI is tough to code because after you make a tweak you have to sim for hours to make sure the impact is sound and appreciable.

[rwd59]

I don't think there was any malice in the posts. AI will always need tweaking and it's also not possible to please everybody because we all have different ideas about how situations should be handled. There is an interesting thread on the Trading AI by Sitting Duck I just bumped back up to the top.

[JimboJ]

ORIGINAL: puresimmer

I'm not sure if you guys are implying that I am not always doing this, because I am. The AI is actually pretty good as it is, and I agree with a little work in the double switch area it will be even better.

AI is tough to code because after you make a tweak you have to sim for hours to make sure the impact is sound and appreciable.

I wasn't implying that at all. I agree that the AI is very good. YOu have done a great job in eliminating the dumb manager moves. Now its just a matter of adding some more intelligence to the computer manager, so it thinks like a human. That is the definition of AI isn't it?

I also bumped up another thread about improving the AI.