Quote:
Originally Posted by BeachBum
A question for people who have done a lot of simming. Are the results reasonable??
|
I know the results in OOTP get knocked a lot, and I have never done a careful study. But I got an appreciation for OOTP when I loaded the new Puresim game demo and replayed both games with the 1909 season a couple of times. The OOTP results seemed more realistic to me. In Puresim (which I like, by the way, especially with fictional), neither the Pirates nor Cubs, who both won over 100 games that year year, won their division; the Giants won both times although they won 92. The Phillies won it in the second run although they were under .500 that year. In fact, the Pirates never made the top 3 in either run. Detroit, who went to the series, didn't make the top 4 in one run. Christy Mathewson, who had a 1.12 ERA in real life, had a 3.5 ERA the first year, which seems too far off. In the OOTP runs, the Cubs won the division one year and the Pirates the next, and Mathewsons ERA was under 2 both times. As I say, I like Puresim, I know the sample size is small, etc, but I think Puresim has a ways to go to match the level of realism in OOTP, and Markus deserves a lot more credit than he gets for the realism factor. I'm sure Puresim will improve with time as Shawn Sullivan is a great developer. I would love to see a more "scientific" comparison, but frankly I'm too lazy
