FrankieT wrote:Backfire,
Welcome back as it seems you returned from a hiatus. I took a break from ATG V-VII so I get it. But in your posts a few things stand out that may be worth considering and have broad applicability to many discussions here.
Use of the term "Normalization".
As djmacb pointed out, the initial assertion that SOM admitted to something was taken out of context. Normalization is not what you (and others in this forum BTW) describe. It has a specific meaning that makes your logic hard to follow because it is not related. In general, normalizing data is about putting disparate data sets onto a "level playing field" for comparison or synthesis, if we are using bad puns. It is not related to what you assert, although maybe you are just using it nominatively. But in that case, choose a different name for clarity.
Selective anecdotes.
For instance, another common point of view that is used as evidence of something nefarious is when players have something like a "sharp decline" in HR output. But we never hear about players who have a sharp increase in HR output--though I know it occurs--we all experience it. And HR could be anything--hits, walks, etc. It is a selective anecdote that leaves out the rest of the story, which invalidates the extreme extrapolation from a point-in-time anecdote to a massive corporate intention. It is quite an unsupported leap statistically and logically.
Subjective expectations of card behavior.
This last one is also common. A misunderstanding of statistics while claiming to use statistical bases for assertions. Player cards not conforming to someone's expectations has many underlying assumptions that are not typically true in the cases on this forum.
It assumes that the long term expected statistical outcomes are proven or disproven by short term non-valid sample results, or subjective assessment. Think of it this way.
If you run a league and have a team, maybe you win 85 games.
If you run that same scenario another 1000 times, you may have an instance of winning only 70 games, and maybe an instance of winning 90. Maybe your 85 wins was a low probability outcome and it over-achieved. That is, a result that is in the tail of distributed outcomes. It does not mean that your team would be expected to win 85 games every time it was used--but that might be your expectation and source of frustration when that team wins 70, which may even be closer to expectation.
The same applies to an individual card. Which BTW--the best way to gauge expectation is to look at the actual results of a card under the same conditions multiple times. There is simply no other way to do it because of the varying factors of the playing environment such as opponents, salary cap, stadia, etc.
Overall, are there differences in the online version from cards and dice? Yes.
Are there differences between the online game and PC/Home version? Yes.
Are those differences posted? Yes. See the wiki (is it 100% updated? I don't know, but that's a different debate).
Are there some legitimate calls for increased transparency of results, that are NOT related to nefarious intent by SOM? Sure. But to conflate a call for display of all PbP results and lookups etc (as I would advocate for) as being equivalent to SOM purposefully altering results to favor new players? This is not supported by any facts. Zero. Especially the most vexing one which is that new players generally do poorly.
Just a few thoughts. Welcome back.
I should perhaps not refer to it as normalization in that case. Point taken. Regarding selective anecdotes, anomalies spring up in data constantly and in this case, the sample sizes are minute and thus are of course not adequate proof of anything. However, I strongly suspect there is more going on than we realize. Unfortunately, I have absolutely no way to prove anything, nor do any other players as none of us have access to the code. I may be the outlier here but we are oddly in a very similar position.
I do understand how averages work, especially highs and lows. What you said is true but there is also intuition and that is something which cannot be quantified and is easily dismissed. It would be nice to have all the answers of how the mind works, and how the game works, but we sadly do not. I have learned to trust my intuition.
I am not sure why you would think new players would not do poorly in a pure environment. Do you think the level of skill expression in the game is low? In practically any form of competition, new players tend to do very poorly. This game is very demanding. There are thousands of player cards, a plethora of ballparks, quite a few rules, many of which are not easy to pin down, and a very tough field of players which is dense in veterans. Sure, the game is largely about dice rolls but team construction and managerial decisions and settings should pose quite a challenge for any new player.
I have been playing games my entire life and this is the only one I do not have easy access to the rules. So yes, added transparency, perhaps complete transparency would go a long way to dispel my concerns. As Dr. Biocide said, we just want to know the rules. Speaking of which, I recently played against a team with atrocious hold ratings and decided to set my base stealing team to very aggressive. I usually do not use this setting but this seemed like a prudent time to try. I was caught quite a few times and I wish I knew the reason. Yes, this is perhaps just another anomaly, just bad luck. But I suspect that setting is overturned and probably a trap. Knowing how it works would be great.
Thank you for your reply and welcome, it's nice to be treated like a human being and not a lunatic out of touch with reality. Especially since I know firsthand that game companies 100% do have secret variables, controls, etc that players are never privy to. That is a fact in the industry and not one I enjoy but it was established long before I signed up. So to you guys, it may seem excessively paranoid or unrealistic but in the eyes of many game designers, it is considered necessary. You might be surprised at times how deep the rabbithole truly is.
Having said that, I don't necessarily think the code was designed with ill-intent, nor do I think Strat-O-Matic is doing anything "nefarious", but I do think they may have concluded that controls are needed to preserve the realism of the game. Having 150 win teams and earth shattering homerun records that could veer so far from real baseball stats may be offputting to some players.
Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:15 am