The high sinker.
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
Stop man, just practice and get better and don't have the game artificially limit your opponent because you can't compete
-
-
Then theoretically if I’m good enough at user input, I can bat .400 with any player. This is not an accurate representation of the sport of baseball.
-
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
-
-
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Then theoretically if I’m good enough at user input, I can bat .400 with any player. This is not an accurate representation of the sport of baseball.
-
-
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Then theoretically if I’m good enough at user input, I can bat .400 with any player. This is not an accurate representation of the sport of baseball.
On the contrary, it is the most accurate representation of the sport.
If you are great at input, then you have great results.
In RL that input is recognizing the pitch, adjusting your swing arc to meet the expected location of the pitch and timing your swing to connect at the optimal angle. That also happens to be an exact description of zone hitting in this game.
Seems pretty realistic to me.
-
-
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Then theoretically if I’m good enough at user input, I can bat .400 with any player. This is not an accurate representation of the sport of baseball.
On the contrary, it is the most accurate representation of the sport.
If you are great at input, then you have great results.
In RL that input is recognizing the pitch, adjusting your swing arc to meet the expected location of the pitch and timing your swing to connect at the optimal angle. That also happens to be an exact description of zone hitting in this game.
Seems pretty realistic to me.
Then you are not playing a game that represents the mlb and the players in it. You are playing a game that represents you. Once again, that’s not realistic, that’s arcade style.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Then theoretically if I’m good enough at user input, I can bat .400 with any player. This is not an accurate representation of the sport of baseball.
On the contrary, it is the most accurate representation of the sport.
If you are great at input, then you have great results.
In RL that input is recognizing the pitch, adjusting your swing arc to meet the expected location of the pitch and timing your swing to connect at the optimal angle. That also happens to be an exact description of zone hitting in this game.
Seems pretty realistic to me.
Then you are not playing a game that represents the mlb and the players in it. You are playing a game that represents you. Once again, that’s not realistic, that’s arcade style.
I am playing a game with players from MLB that I control.
When I play Monopoly as the wheelbarrow I am still able to purchase real estate.
-
-
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
-
-
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
-
-
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
Lol. Do you have to make WS to have a valid opinion in your mind? Or is the threshold at a lower division? Maybe have to go 12-0 to have a respectable opinions from your point of view?
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
Lol. Do you have to make WS to have a valid opinion in your mind? Or is the threshold at a lower division? Maybe have to go 12-0 to have a respectable opinions from your point of view?
Nope, but it's very telling when you have an opinion like this and you're not very good.
-
-
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
Lol. Do you have to make WS to have a valid opinion in your mind? Or is the threshold at a lower division? Maybe have to go 12-0 to have a respectable opinions from your point of view?
Nope, but it's very telling when you have an opinion like this and you're not very good.
What division in your opinion is good?
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
Lol. Do you have to make WS to have a valid opinion in your mind? Or is the threshold at a lower division? Maybe have to go 12-0 to have a respectable opinions from your point of view?
Nope, but it's very telling when you have an opinion like this and you're not very good.
What division in your opinion is good?
Irrelevant as I don't think any division is good, if you make world series with a .500 record are you good? no, if it takes you 85 games to get to world series is that something that should be considered good? no.
If you're arguing for more sim and less user input and you have a record in the .500s hitting in the .250s it's very clear why you feel that way and no it has nothing to do with "realism"
-
-
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
Lol. Do you have to make WS to have a valid opinion in your mind? Or is the threshold at a lower division? Maybe have to go 12-0 to have a respectable opinions from your point of view?
Nope, but it's very telling when you have an opinion like this and you're not very good.
What division in your opinion is good?
Irrelevant as I don't think any division is good, if you make world series with a .500 record are you good? no, if it takes you 85 games to get to world series is that something that should be considered good? no.
If you're arguing for more sim and less user input and you have a record in the .500s hitting in the .250s it's very clear why you feel that way and no it has nothing to do with "realism"
Got it. Nobody’s opinion matters unless they are in the top 1% of players or their thoughts align with yours. I think I understand you now. Good day sir.
-
-
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@skepple15 said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
@abbyspapa said in The high sinker.:
@sean_87_ said in The high sinker.:
I believe you are referencing players that had poor plate discipline. Yes, it is possible to be more patient than that player was in real life, but for the game to be realistic there is no way you can have him hit for averages that he never came close to achieving in real life. If you don’t keep it realistic, than essentially every card is the same.
So Babe Ruth, should always be around .342 and 46 hrs because that was him in reality even though the real game completely changed since 1935. Makes sense.
This I agree with you becomes difficult because babe Ruth never faced today’s competition and vice versa. Some argue he wouldn’t even be a major league player into today’s game. If your going to have today’s players playing against players of the past, then you can do it one of two ways. Reference the numbers they put up back in their careers, or come up with a formula that you thought would accurately represent him into today’s game. I don’t think the latter is fair for players of the past bc they did not have the knowledge we do today about training.
So, we don't know what Babe Ruth would hit today right? So if we hit .400 with him in this game, what basis of comparison are you using to say that is not realistic?
We can't use his real life stats, because those are from a completely different era right?
I gave two options, using his stats he put up as a basis I think is a good idea bc he actually did that. Whatever formula we came up with to determine what he would do today, still didn’t really happen.
I used him as an example, but this is the case in the entire DD H2H world. Players from all different eras playing against each other, many of whom never faced each other.
So, how can we say whatever stats we get with them are "unrealistic" when there are no factual basis of comparisons?
You have to go off the numbers they actually put up.
Why? Not one of them had someone in their mind telling them what to do (except maybe Yogi Berra). They were not marionnettes subject to a user's whims.
If you enforce that their virtual stats must closely mirror their RL stats, then again I ask, what point is there in having a user input at all? It's basically The History Channel.
We discussed this already. Go back and read about decision making by the user.
Lol, you're "decision making" argument doesn't allow for the user to be a better decision maker and therefore achieve better results. Don't you see the contradiction?
I will spell it out:
-
If I make better decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .400 with him.
-
if I make worse decisions with Tony Gwynn, I should be able to hit .180 with him.
Both of these scenarios are completely dependent on my skill and are equally possible.
We had this discussion already. The decision making is what separates the users.
Yes, but according to you, that separation can only be so far, which doesn't make sense.
Yes, otherwise there would be no difference in cards (players).
But there is difference in cards, better card ratings = easier to produce better input = better results.
Correct, don't worry about it though, you're right he's wrong, he just wants to be able to compete without having to actually have skill.
I would never say I had skill at baseball bc I was good or bad at timing a meter in a video game.
You’re not good at the video game, because of that others shouldn’t be allowed to be good at the video game, we understand, participation trophies for everyone.
lol. You completely miss the point, it doesn’t matter how good I am at the game. You act as if my opinion matters more or less depending on my record. For the record though, I think I’m above .500, so I would say I’m right there in the middle of the pack.
When you argue for more simulation and less user input it 100% matters how good you are at the game
I couldn’t disagree more. Let’s be honest now, if I was undefeated you would still have your opinions and I would have mine. You act as if I’m going to have the ability to miraculously change your mind bc my record is better than yours. Good conversations though, you have your thoughts, I have mine.
Nah, people wouldn't look at your asinine point of more sim less user input as the ramblings of an average player wanting to compete more if your record was better...
Lol. Do you have to make WS to have a valid opinion in your mind? Or is the threshold at a lower division? Maybe have to go 12-0 to have a respectable opinions from your point of view?
Nope, but it's very telling when you have an opinion like this and you're not very good.
What division in your opinion is good?
Irrelevant as I don't think any division is good, if you make world series with a .500 record are you good? no, if it takes you 85 games to get to world series is that something that should be considered good? no.
If you're arguing for more sim and less user input and you have a record in the .500s hitting in the .250s it's very clear why you feel that way and no it has nothing to do with "realism"
Got it. Nobody’s opinion matters unless they are in the top 1% of players or their thoughts align with yours. I think I understand you now. Good day sir.
Never said that at all, just said your opinion is based on you wanting to compete without actually having to get better, didn't say your opinion mattered more or less because of it.
-
