OOTP 9 - First Screenshots!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Hey guys,

we have just posted the first screenshots of OOTP 9, please check them out here if you are interested:
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/ootp-8-2007-general-discussions/163675-first-out-park-baseball-9-screenshots.html

Thanks for listening! :)

Cheers,
Markus

PS: The game will be released in a few weeks, at a price of $39.99... however, we'll start a pre-ordering period next week, the price will drop to $24.99 during that time :)

[Cringer]

Crap. I may get suckered in by the $15 off. :D

[Ksyrup]

LOVE the new skin - much cleaner, not as much of an eyesore as OOTP7. That alone might get me to drop $25 on it.

Question, though (although I'm afraid to hear the answer)...are there still going to be dueling player pages? Is the dual Game Screens/History Screens thing still in the game? I don't know if you've read our posts in recent threads, but I'm, uh, not a fan of the game's lay out in OOTP7. I want to go to one player card for everything - I don't want a player profile card, and then a player history card. And that goes for all of the screens, not just the player pages - there were tons of confusing, duplicative, incongruous screens in OOTP7 that made it completely frustrating to navigate through.

Anway, I've said my piece a number of times, so I'll leave it at that. Just wondering if the new game is largely going to be the same layout-wise, but with a cleaner presentation (IMO, based on the screens you posted).

[Markus Heinsohn]

Question, though (although I'm afraid to hear the answer)...are there still going to be dueling player pages? Is the dual Game Screens/History Screens thing still in the game? I don't know if you've read our posts in recent threads, but I'm, uh, not a fan of the game's lay out in OOTP7. I want to go to one player card for everything - I don't want a player profile card, and then a player history card. And that goes for all of the screens, not just the player pages - there were tons of confusing, duplicative, incongruous screens in OOTP7 that made it completely frustrating to navigate through.

Anway, I've said my piece a number of times, so I'll leave it at that. Just wondering if the new game is largely going to be the same layout-wise, but with a cleaner presentation (IMO, based on the screens you posted).

Well, I know that this causes confusion for some, but simply think of it as a website inside the game... we all browse sports websites every day, and you can do this within OOTP as well, browsing a website which covers your baseball universe. Since we build these HTML pages for the online leagues anyway, I think it would be a waste not to put them directly into the game, considering that you can right-click on the player links to get the available actions :)

By the way, that player history card is a sub-section in the player profile screen, under the "history" tab.

[rjolley]

Looks very nice, Markus. A question about the scouting report.

The site says the reports are kept for each year, is generated once a year, and isn't deleted when you change scouts. Is the report regenerated if you change scouts mid-year and are both reports kept in that case?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Looks very nice, Markus. A question about the scouting report.

The site says the reports are kept for each year, is generated once a year, and isn't deleted when you change scouts. Is the report regenerated if you change scouts mid-year and are both reports kept in that case?

When you change scouts, the new scout automatically updates all scouting reports... the latest previous report is kept too :)

However, it's not the written report that's kept, but rather the ratings, which are displayed in a list on the scouting section of the player screen.

[Subby]

Is the development engine the same as previous versions?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Is the development engine the same as previous versions?

We have improved it :) Although the results it produced were extremely realistic to begin with...

[SteveMax58]

Markus...the first screenshot image says that the message type is "SI Network News".

Should that still say SI?

[Subby]

We have improved it :) Although the results it produced were extremely realistic to begin with...
I don't have any issues with the results as much as I do with how it is reported. The dev reports don't give a ton of information and our league has to rely on a 3rd party utility to see all dev increases and decreases.

How has it been improved?

[Markus Heinsohn]

I don't have any issues with the results as much as I do with how it is reported. The dev reports don't give a ton of information and our league has to rely on a 3rd party utility to see all dev increases and decreases.

How has it been improved?

Yes, since the game now stores one scouting report each year... so you can easily see the ratings progression.

[Ksyrup]

By the way, that player history card is a sub-section in the player profile screen, under the "history" tab.

Well screw me.

I figured this was something new for OOTP9, but I pulled up the old game just to see what you were talking about. And sure enough, there it is. Had no clue until this moment that the History link took me to a page with a set of 3 buttons at the top, one of which links to the SION Page.

I guess this illustrates my pont about how counter-intuitive the screens are. To me, flipping between the Player Profile and SION Page is extremely important and something I do all the time. Problem is, clicking on the player in one set of screens takes you to the profile, while from another set of screens it takes you to the SION Page. So getting between them is a tremendous pain, and even moreso because using the back arrow will sometimes skip you right out of the player altogether and back where you started. What you just showed me is great, but it's so buried in there, I didn't even know it existed until now. IMO, the link to the SION Page should be its own tab on the main player profile screen, not buried under a tab called history. It's that important.

But thanks for pointing that out. It will come in handy...for the next version of the game.

[cuervo72]

Yes, since the game now stores one scouting report each year... so you can easily see the ratings progression.

We're (FOBL) used to sim to sim progression - something that might be overly cumbersome to the db really. But it's something that we definitely use for MP (first with BOSI, now with this new utility), where we are more concerned with every adjustment, as one season takes a couple of months rather than just following a player's career over the course of a few hours/days.

http://www.thefobl.com/cgi-bin/development.html?player=4222

[SteveMax58]

Markus...the first screenshot image says that the message type is "SI Network News".

Should that still say SI?


NM...I just saw the poll for this name change over there.

[Ksyrup]

Also, I hate to bring this up, but the most important issue to me is the weight the AI gives to performance vs. ratings. As I detailed in a thread earlier about this, we have the ability to set the weight given to ratings to zero, and to have the AI use only stats to evaluate players. Yet, through some specific examples I posted in that other thread, it is beyond obvious that the game is not only using ratings to evaluate the players, it is ignoring very good stats from the prior year and either demoting or outright cutting players before the next season starts. It is impossible, in real-life baseball, for a guy to win 20 games one season and end up as an unsigned FA before the next season starts (putting aside contract issues, which are not the case here). Or, for that guy to then pitch the next year in AAA.

Have these issues been dealt with, and if we still have the ability to set percentages for how the AI evaluates players (ratings and stats for current, 1 and 2 years), does that function work properly? Can we actually set up a league in which the AI uses stats almost exclusively to evaluate players, instead of preemptively demoting or promoting them based on drops or bumps in talent levels that haven't shown up in on-field performance?

[cuervo72]

Well screw me.

I figured this was something new for OOTP9, but I pulled up the old game just to see what you were talking about. And sure enough, there it is. Had no clue until this moment that the History link took me to a page with a set of 3 buttons at the top, one of which links to the SION Page.

For FOBL I just now figured out (someone pointed it out) that I could access UER for each team through the 'Pitching Report' link on the league page (which makes sense). My first inclination though was to go to the link labeled 'Stats', which contains something a bit different.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Also, I hate to bring this up, but the most important issue to me is the weight the AI gives to performance vs. ratings. As I detailed in a thread earlier about this, we have the ability to set the weight given to ratings to zero, and to have the AI use only stats to evaluate players. Yet, through some specific examples I posted in that other thread, it is beyond obvious that the game is not only using ratings to evaluate the players, it is ignoring very good stats from the prior year and either demoting or outright cutting players before the next season starts. It is impossible, in real-life baseball, for a guy to win 20 games one season and end up as an unsigned FA before the next season starts (putting aside contract issues, which are not the case here). Or, for that guy to then pitch the next year in AAA.

Have these issues been dealt with, and if we still have the ability to set percentages for how the AI evaluates players (ratings and stats for current, 1 and 2 years), does that function work properly? Can we actually set up a league in which the AI uses stats almost exclusively to evaluate players, instead of preemptively demoting or promoting them based on drops or bumps in talent levels that haven't shown up in on-field performance?

Well, the game will use ratings if there are not enough stats for a certain year. Let's say a guy had 250 AB in a season, then the game will not use 100% stats, but rather 50% stats + 50% ratings because the stats are just a half season, and could be a fluke.

I'll look into this again though :)

[Ksyrup]

Well, the game will use ratings if there are not enough stats for a certain year. Let's say a guy had 250 AB in a season, then the game will not use 100% stats, but rather 50% stats + 50% ratings because the stats are just a half season, and could be a fluke.

I'll look into this again though :)

That would be great. Please see this post:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1681006&postcount=18

I also posted similar stuff last year on the OOTP board. I will usually set the eval %s as 10/50/30/10, meaning 10% ratings, 50% current stats, 30% last year's stats, and 10% 2 years ago stats. Sometimes the issue comes up before a season starts, which could mean the "current year's stats" are causing the problem because there are no current year stats until games start - 50% of nothing. But wouldn't that effect a number of people? But sometimes, it happens midway through a season - look at Cal McLish 1948 and Charlie Case 1908 or Don Schwall 1966.

What I really want to get to is a situation where stats matter almost entirely, so that the AI is reacting to good or bad performance in its decision-making, and not seeing a drop or jump in talent between seasons and making pre-emptive, "omnipotent" decisions.

[Anthony]

That would be great. Please see this post:

http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1681006&postcount=18

I also posted similar stuff last year on the OOTP board. I will usually set the eval %s as 10/50/30/10, meaning 10% ratings, 50% current stats, 30% last year's stats, and 10% 2 years ago stats.

see, but even you aren't being realistic. if in real life teams went by stats mostly then guys like JD Drew would've been out of the league many years ago. but obviously his "ratings", or in real life terms the skills he has, are enough to make scouts drool so he still gets contracts. if all you went by was stats then you wouldn't realize how good Drew could potentially be. or even if a you have a really talented guy stuck on a bad team - that's going to skew his stats. you don't think any scout worth his balls would say "well, he clearly is a good pitcher, his fastball is superb and he's got great control, he's just stuck on a bad team that can't give him run support".

perhaps in your baseball universe you want it another way, but that doesn't mean the way OOTP does it is wrong. not that i'm defending the game (last time i purchased OOTP was v6), just you are clearly using your own bias which is pretty much not in-line with how it's really done to make a judgement on a game.

[Eaglesfan27]

see, but even you aren't being realistic. if in real life teams went by stats mostly then guys like JD Drew would've been out of the league many years ago. but obviously his "ratings", or in real life terms the skills he has, are enough to make scouts drool so he still gets contracts. if all you went by was stats then you wouldn't realize how good Drew could potentially be.

perhaps in your baseball universe you want it another way, but that doesn't mean the way OOTP does it is wrong. not that i'm defending the game (last time i purchased OOTP was v6), just you are clearly using your own bias which is pretty much not in-line with how it's really done to make a judgement on a game.

I don't think Ksyrup or most users would have issues with what you describe. What I hate (and what I'm fairly certain Ksyrup doesn't like) is when a Cy Young or MVP winner gets cut the next year midseason (or earlier) because his "ratings" have suddenly dropped.

[Anthony]

I don't think Ksyrup or most users would have issues with what you describe. What I hate (and what I'm fairly certain Ksyrup doesn't like) is when a Cy Young or MVP winner gets cut the next year midseason because his "ratings" have suddenly dropped.

ok, i got ya. that's a different story then.

[Ksyrup]

I have no problem with a team elevating a rookie to a starting position before he performs well (although even in those cases, most often they at least show something at the minor league level that demonstrates they are ready). That's not really the main issue, anyway. By far, the bigger issue is teams dumping good-to-great performers before they show any inkling of falling off. You can't tell me that it's realistic that barring injury, the previous year's CY winner would be in the minors or dumped into FA, where no other team would take a shot at signing them.

[Ksyrup]

What EF27 said. And if you look at the examples in that post I referenced, most of the time the ratings barely drop at all. But even so...even if a great pitcher the year before shows up to spring training and sucks donkey balls, there's no way the GM would say, "You know, I think this guy is cooked. To the waiver wire with him!"

[Markus Heinsohn]

I don't think Ksyrup or most users would have issues with what you describe. What I hate (and what I'm fairly certain Ksyrup doesn't like) is when a Cy Young or MVP winner gets cut the next year midseason (or earlier) because his "ratings" have suddenly dropped.

Hmmm... I have not seen this in OOTP 8. Ratings & stats alone is not the only factor here, the contract plays a role as well, guys with higher contracts get a bonus.

[TroyF]

see, but even you aren't being realistic. if in real life teams went by stats mostly then guys like JD Drew would've been out of the league many years ago. but obviously his "ratings", or in real life terms the skills he has, are enough to make scouts drool so he still gets contracts. if all you went by was stats then you wouldn't realize how good Drew could potentially be. or even if a you have a really talented guy stuck on a bad team - that's going to skew his stats. you don't think any scout worth his balls would say "well, he clearly is a good pitcher, his fastball is superb and he's got great control, he's just stuck on a bad team that can't give him run support".

perhaps in your baseball universe you want it another way, but that doesn't mean the way OOTP does it is wrong. not that i'm defending the game (last time i purchased OOTP was v6), just you are clearly using your own bias which is pretty much not in-line with how it's really done to make a judgement on a game.

I think you are a little off base here. JD Drew would be out of the league if they went by stats? The guy is a career .285 hitter, with a .391 OBP and an OPS of .893.

Injuries and lack of clutch play have defined him far more than statistics.

The only place where I think KSyrups thinking could be off is something like a Garret Atkins last year. He was hitting .223 after his first two months with 200 or so at bats. He'd had a great year the previous year and a solid, not great year the year before that.

Essentially, 60+% of his ratings would be off base and I could see the game engine benching him for Ian Stewart, the hot shot prospect.

That said, this is still better than watching a Cy Young winner get released because of his ratings drop. Or a hall of famer getting released in the midst of a .330 20HR season because the game has determined he can't play anymore. These are things that happened in last years version even with stats being the sole decider. (which they clearly weren't)

[Anthony]

not quite the year before, but close enough (off the top of my head):

SP Bartolo Colon (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3602), 2 time 20 game winner, won 21 games as recently as 2005. had a major injury in '06, didn't quite rebound for '07 and is now in the Red Sox' minor leagues. i'm completely surprised he wasn't in the majors.

i'm not debating or aruguing with you, i didn't have last year's version of OOTP so you're more informed than i am re: this issue. i agree a Cy-Young candidate one year shouldn't be in AAA-ball the next year cuz he lost 2 pts off his stuff or something like that.

[Ksyrup]

Admittedly, I haven't looked at the contract factor, especially since I'm playing historical replays, these old guys aren't in FA, they're stuck with their teams until traded or released. So I would hope contracts don't factor in too much here. And if they do get into a contractual dispute and are dropped, maybe the issue is they don't readjust their demands? Seems like if one team dropped a CY winner, at least ONE team would take a shot at them, right?

But the other situations are troubling, too - guys demoted either mid-season or between seasons (still have to pay the contract right?).

[Anthony]

And if they do get into a contractual dispute and are dropped, maybe the issue is they don't readjust their demands? Seems like if one team dropped a CY winner, at least ONE team would take a shot at them, right?

or the guy would be traded, i would assume. dropping a guy outright is such an extreme consequence for a high profile player like a Cy Young winner. or even waiver wire i would think would be an alternate result.

[Ksyrup]

The only place where I think KSyrups thinking could be off is something like a Garret Atkins last year. He was hitting .223 after his first two months with 200 or so at bats. He'd had a great year the previous year and a solid, not great year the year before that.

Essentially, 60+% of his ratings would be off base and I could see the game engine benching him for Ian Stewart, the hot shot prospect.

That could be an issue, too, but it's so hard to track I haven't really focused on that. Looking at my post in the other thread, there are 3 examples of guys pitching lights-out and getting demoted (or dropped from the rotation and sitting unused for the rest of the year) mid-season. Even if 50% of their evaluation is based on stats, how do you explain these?


Don Schwall
1966: 12-1, 2.50, 126 IP, 110 H, 10/45 BB/K
Spends rest of year in AAA, goes 6-4 with a 2.20 ERA - No Injuries.


Cal McLish
1948: 13-5, 2.85, 148 IP, 129 H, 54/57 BB/K
Ratings: 5/3, 15/14, 11/10
No injury in 1948 - won Player of the Month for May, made the All-Star team in July...and then was dropped from the rotation and sat unused for the rest of the season. Spent 1949-51 in the minors and was done.


Charlie Case
1908: 6-4, 1.05, 94 IP, 71 H, 15/42 BB/K, completed all 10 starts
Won Pitcher of the Month for June...was sent to the minors for the rest of the year, where he went 18-5 with a 1.90 ERA at AAA.

[TroyF]

not quite the year before, but close enough (off the top of my head):

SP Bartolo Colon (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/stats?playerId=3602), 2 time 20 game winner, won 21 games as recently as 2005. had a major injury in '06, didn't quite rebound for '07 and is now in the Red Sox' minor leagues. i'm completely surprised he wasn't in the majors.

i'm not debating or aruguing with you, i didn't have last year's version of OOTP so you're more informed than i am re: this issue. i agree a Cy-Young candidate one year shouldn't be in AAA-ball the next year cuz he lost 2 pts off his stuff or something like that.

He's actually the perfect case for what KSyrup is trying to say. How do we know Colon didn't come back from the injury? His stats were garbage. In 2006, he gave up 71 hits in only 56 innings. He came back in 2007 and put up an ERA of 6.34 in 18 starts.

Then the Angels dumped him.

In OOTP's world, Colon could have gotten a major injury, came back and put up an ERA of 3.56 for half a season and then been cut because his ratings showed he couldn't pitch anymore.

Had Colon had a 3.50 ERA for the Angels last year, he'd be in their rotation this year while Dustin Mosely would be in relief where he belongs.

[Ksyrup]

The guys I'm talking about had no injuries that affected the decisions that were made. None.

[TroyF]

That could be an issue, too, but it's so hard to track I haven't really focused on that. Looking at my post in the other thread, there are 3 examples of guys pitching lights-out and getting demoted (or dropped from the rotation and sitting unused for the rest of the year) mid-season. Even if 50% of their evaluation is based on stats, how do you explain these?


Don Schwall
1966: 12-1, 2.50, 126 IP, 110 H, 10/45 BB/K
Spends rest of year in AAA, goes 6-4 with a 2.20 ERA - No Injuries.


Cal McLish
1948: 13-5, 2.85, 148 IP, 129 H, 54/57 BB/K
Ratings: 5/3, 15/14, 11/10
No injury in 1948 - won Player of the Month for May, made the All-Star team in July...and then was dropped from the rotation and sat unused for the rest of the season. Spent 1949-51 in the minors and was done.


Charlie Case
1908: 6-4, 1.05, 94 IP, 71 H, 15/42 BB/K, completed all 10 starts
Won Pitcher of the Month for June...was sent to the minors for the rest of the year, where he went 18-5 with a 1.90 ERA at AAA.

There is no explanation. I'm agreeing with you. I'm just saying your idea does have a slight tradeoff. Guys early in their second or third years who get off to slow starts with a top prospect behind them could suffer under it.

But that said, I think that's a better tradeoff then the examples you cite above, things that happen in OOTP's world all of the time.

[Anthony]

i was clearly wrong then. especially after seeing the examples KSyrup gave hard to provide a counterpoint to his statements.

[TroyF]

The guys I'm talking about had no injuries that affected the decisions that were made. None.

I understand, I was just making a point of what OOTP does. Ratings drops, for whatever reason, injuries/age/scout change. . . cause OOTP to completely change the evaluation of a player regardless of the stats he's putting up.

In the case of Colon, OOTP would essentially dump him as quickly as possible. IRL, his team would give him 20-25 starts after the injury to see if he still has it.

[Eaglesfan27]

I'm at work without game access, but I have multiple examples of guys from the last version who were MVP's or top pitchers in one year and then were just demoted to the minors or cut for no explanation other than their ratings dropped a few points the following year. Like Ksyrup, these were in historical careers, so it is hard to evaluate how important the contracts were in the equation, but this issue kills the main appeal of the game to me.

[Ksyrup]

Can you imagine if a team took a guy with a 12-1 record who made the All-Star team and sent him to AAA? Ha! I'd almost like to see that happen IRL just to watch the carnage unfold.

[Markus Heinsohn]

That could be an issue, too, but it's so hard to track I haven't really focused on that. Looking at my post in the other thread, there are 3 examples of guys pitching lights-out and getting demoted (or dropped from the rotation and sitting unused for the rest of the year) mid-season. Even if 50% of their evaluation is based on stats, how do you explain these?


Don Schwall
1966: 12-1, 2.50, 126 IP, 110 H, 10/45 BB/K
Spends rest of year in AAA, goes 6-4 with a 2.20 ERA - No Injuries.


Cal McLish
1948: 13-5, 2.85, 148 IP, 129 H, 54/57 BB/K
Ratings: 5/3, 15/14, 11/10
No injury in 1948 - won Player of the Month for May, made the All-Star team in July...and then was dropped from the rotation and sat unused for the rest of the season. Spent 1949-51 in the minors and was done.


Charlie Case
1908: 6-4, 1.05, 94 IP, 71 H, 15/42 BB/K, completed all 10 starts
Won Pitcher of the Month for June...was sent to the minors for the rest of the year, where he went 18-5 with a 1.90 ERA at AAA.

That is pretty weird, I've never seen something like this in OOTP 8... which version are you using?

[Draft Dodger]

maybe the issue isn't MVP / Cy Young caliber players getting demoted, but with too many below average guys playing at the MVP / Cy Young level

[Ksyrup]

That is pretty weird, I've never seen something like this in OOTP 8... which version are you using?

OOTP7, the SI version. Several of us brought these issues up back last April/May or so (as I can recall), so it's not related to any specific career I created. I could start a new career tonight, run 75 years of history, and find the same things.

No offense, but I don't have OOTP8 so I can't tell you if the same issue is occurring. I hope it's not. I'd be happy to do some checking if you want to send me a copy of OOTP8 or add me as a beta-tester for this limited purpose on the new game. I'm getting pretty good at spotting them, at least from the obvious lists of above-average players (mostly pitchers is where I'm seeing the issue).

[Ksyrup]

For ease of reference, here is the full list of guys I posted in the other thread wih my comments. I found these from just going through the careers of about 75% of the CY winners, in about an hour's time:


This is an historical league, with AI player evaluation options set to:

Ratings - 10
Current Year Stats - 50
Previous Year - 30
2 Years Ago - 10


Fernando Valenzuela:

1982: 18-14, 3.13 ERA, 273 IP, 229 H, 87/232 BB/K, 15 CGs
Ratings (all ratings as of January 1st of that year): 12/10, 16/11, 12/11

1983: 12-16, 3.40 ERA, 241 IP, 198 H, 86/182 BB/K, 13 CGs
Ratings: 10/8, 14/11, 11/9

1984: AAA - 15-8, 2.63 ERA, 192 IP, 130 H, 75/236 BB/KK, 14 CGs
Ratings: 8/6, 11/10, 11/9

Didn't pitch in the majors again until 1987, but pitched very well in the minors for 84-86. Yes, his rating slipped from 1982 to 1984, but his stats do not support dropping him to the minors before 1984 even started.




Here's an interesting one - Cal McLish:

1946 - 21-9, 2.48, 236 IP, 174 H, 77/183 BB/K
Won Cy Young Award!
Ratings: 8/7, 15/13, 12/13

1947: 20-4, 3.24, 195 IP, 157 H, 82/88 BB/K
Ratings: 6/5, 15/14, 12/10

1948: 13-5, 2.85, 148 IP, 129 H, 54/57 BB/K
Ratings: 5/3, 15/14, 11/10

No injury in 1948 - won Player of the Month for May, made the All-Star team in July...and then was dropped from the rotation and sat unused for the rest of the season. Spent 1949-51 in the minors and was done.




Chief Bender:

1904: 26-13, 1.83, 359 IP, 279 H, 80/260 BB/K, 37 CGs
Ratings: 8/8, 19/20, 14/15

1905: 22-17, 1.91, 349 IP, 257 H, 94/245 BB/K, 36 CGs
Won Cy Young Award!
Ratings: 8/7, 17/16, 14/12

1906 ratings: 7/6, 17/16, 12/9
1906-07 - spent entire years in minors. Won Cy Young in 1905 and never pitched in the majors again!!!???




Here's a bizarre one....Charlie Case:

1907: 22-16, 2.48, 341 IP, 330 H, 81/110 BB/K, 36 CGs
Ratings: 4/3, 18/18, 14/14

1908: 6-4, 1.05, 94 IP, 71 H, 15/42 BB/K, completed all 10 starts
Won Pitcher of the Month for June...was sent to the minors for the rest of the year, where he went 18-5 with a 1.90 ERA at AAA.
Ratings: 3/3, 18/18, 14/14

1909: Released by the Tigers on April 8th; re-signed by the Tigers on November 27th! Did not pitch the entire year!!
Ratings: 3/3, 18/18, 14/14

1910: 15-13, 2.67, 273 IP, 263 H, 75/92, 24 CGs
Ratings: 4/3, 18/18, 14/14

That's right - dude lost 1 POINT off his stuff, which got him tossed out of the starting rotation with a 1.05 ERA and released the next year. He regained that 1 point, and he pitched through 1917.




Another one I can't figure out - Don Schwall:

1965: 22-5, 2.68, 248 IP, 186 H, 93/194 BB/K
Won Cy Young Award!
Ratings: 8/8, 17/17, 9/10

1966: 12-1, 2.50, 126 IP, 110 H, 10/45 BB/K
Spends rest of year in AAA, goes 6-4 with a 2.20 ERA - No Injuries.
Ratings: 8/8, 17/17, 9/10

1967: 11-13, 2.90, 208 IP, 180 H, 65/120 BB/K
Rating: 8/8, 17/17, 10/10

1968: AAA - 8-13, 2.54, 181 IP, 145 H, 78/226 BB/K
No appearance in the majors this year!
Ratings: 7/8, 17/17, 10/10

At end of 1968, he is picked by the Expos in the expansion draft.

1969: After pitching 60 innings for the expansion Expos and compiling a 1-5 record with a 5.07 ERA, he gets traded back to Boston, where he goes 12-2, 2.78 for the rest of the year!
Ratings: 7/7, 17/17, 10/10

1970: 11-5, 3.10, 157 IP, 128 H, 84/102 BB/K
Appears to have been less-used starter (only 21 starts, no AAA time)
Ratings: 7/7, 17/17, 10/10

April 1971: Released with ratings of 7/7, 16/17, 10/10.

January 1, 1972: Retires with ratings of 6/7, 16/16, 10/10

I have not even a guess at an explanation for THAT one...

[Arles]

Screenshots look very clean and well organized. This looks like a great improvement by Markus.

[Huckleberry]

Obviously we all agree that the issues Ksyrup has pointed out are a serious problem. So let's see what we can come up with to suggest to Markus as a solution.

As TroyF astutely observed, a stats-only (or almost stats-only) decision-making algorithm can run into problems with a player that has had an extended slump early in the year. But doing it only based on ratings causes silliness like the Cy Young winner being released.

Seems like some sort of Bayesian adjustment to the current year's stats should be utilized. Let's take the example of using a system with 0% ratings, 50% this year's stats, 30% last year's stats, and 20% two years ago stats.

I think what should happen is that a minimum number of plate appearances (or innings pitched/batters faced) should be set for the current year stats to be calculated alone. That should be set to the weighted average of the previous two years' stats. If the player still has less than that amount then it will be adjusted with the other two years.

Example:

Garret Atkins Stats (I ignored HBP for this quick analysis so his OBP is lower):

Year PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG
2006 695 602 198 48 1 29 79 76 .329 .399 .556
2007 684 605 182 35 1 25 67 96 .301 .364 .486
2008 37 35 10 2 0 0 1 5 .286 .324 .343
Obviously his 2008 numbers shouldn't be weighted at 50% all on their own yet. So what portion of that 50% should be his 2008 stats? The first thing I did was weight the plate appearances from the previous two seasons at the same ratio as the modifiers were set (60% last year and 40% two years ago). So the baseline plate appearances total before the 2008 stats are considered on their own was 688.4 PA. Beyond that, the calculation was to use the 2008 stats that have actually been accrued, and then fill in the rest of the plate appearances needed to get to 688.4 with stats from the previous two years. Once again, 60% of those stats came from 2007 and 40% came from 2006.

So currently, the stats that the game would use for Atkins' current year and last two years would look like this:

Year PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG
2006 695 602 198 48 1 29 79 76 .329 .399 .556
2007 684 605 182 35 1 25 67 96 .301 .364 .486
2008** 688.4 606.3 188.3 40.0 0.9 25.2 68.9 88.3 .311 .374 .504
Just to show how the effect changes throughout the year, let's assume that Atkins keeps up his 2008 performance through 10 times as many plate appearances (370):

Year PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG
2006 695 602 198 48 1 29 79 76 .329 .399 .556
2007 684 605 182 35 1 25 67 96 .301 .364 .486
2008 370 350 100 20 0 0 10 50 .286 .324 .343
2008** 688.4 629.3 187.1 38.6 0.5 12.3 43.2 90.7 .297 .335 .419

The 2008** line is of course the one that the game would use. And the effect obviously diminishes continuously and once the PAs for the current year reach the magic number, the effect completely disappears.

Just one way to do it.

[Alan T]

Every time I see one of these Cy Young pitchers suddenly tank in OOTP it makes me think of Len Barker, and that is not a good thing :(

[lynchjm24]

Just one way to do it.

Wouldn't it be simple to just project a PECOTA-like weighted mean projection using the last 3 years of stats. As the plate appearances accumulate in the current season more weight is moved to the current year stats and weight is removed from the projection.

Project 250/330/425
Stats through 300 PA 300/400/500
At 300 PA the stats are weighted 60/40 and the AI is valuing a player somewhere around 280/365/470 (guessing as I'm lazy to actually calculate).

Now that I think about it projections might fix many of the games issues. How to value stats versus ratings. How to value players for trade/waiver. Have an internal rolling 5 year WARP projection for each player and that might make it much easier for the AI to properly value prospects and players with big contract.

Another possible way to fix the release of the Cy Young type player is to tie popularity to actually being on the field and not just in the organization. If Award winners become highly popular and you need them to be on the field to actually drive attendance/revenue then that gives the AI another reason to not release an all-star pitcher the next season after a quick ratings crash.

[Anthony]

why would i need to know my scout's BMI?

finally was able to see the screens, looks very modern. i like the added ratings for personality traits.

[Big Fo]

Looks good, the $15 discount basically confirms that I'll be pre-ordering. With this game and other recent announcements we could be looking at a nice year for sports management sims.

[watravaler]

^^^^^^
Second....haven't purchased the game since OOTP4, but I think it's time!

[Galaril]

Wow. I see the OOTP boards are still full of tools. I love this comment on the new interface screens shots, which in my opinion appear to be a huge improvement over the last interface:

"Just from the shots, it almost looks like Markus is trying to go for the look and feel of the older OOTP versions, rather than maintain what I considered to be a very sleek and slick looking interface.":eek: :confused:

[Izulde]

Wow. I see the OOTP boards are still full of tools. I love this comment on the new interface screens shots, which in my opinion appear to be a huge improvement over the last interface:

"Just from the shots, it almost looks like Markus is trying to go for the look and feel of the older OOTP versions, rather than maintain what I considered to be a very sleek and slick looking interface.":eek: :confused:

Yeah, there's been a major firestorm over the interface for a long, long time now.

I started a 6.5 vs. 2007 interface thread that generated a lot of discussion on the subject and may have influenced this interface design somewhat.

[BYU 14]

Wow. I see the OOTP boards are still full of tools. I love this comment on the new interface screens shots, which in my opinion appear to be a huge improvement over the last interface:

"Just from the shots, it almost looks like Markus is trying to go for the look and feel of the older OOTP versions, rather than maintain what I considered to be a very sleek and slick looking interface.":eek: :confused:

I agree, it's amazing in the difference the new screenies are being received between the FOFC and OOTP boards. It seems like the view here has been generally favorable and there is a lot of whining over there.

I don't get it, I think Markus is doing the right thing ...I was actually (cringe) considering getting BM09, but it looks like I will remain on the OOTP bandwagon after seeing these.

[Galaril]

I agree, it's amazing in the difference the new screenies are being received between the FOFC and OOTP boards. It seems like the view here has been generally favorable and there is a lot of whining over there.

I don't get it, I think Markus is doing the right thing ...I was actually (cringe) considering getting BM09, but it looks like I will remain on the OOTP bandwagon after seeing these.


Totally agree. I have heard how they are bunch of you know what's over there on the OOTP board (generalizaion) and now I see that is much more fact than fiction. I now see why Markus gets like he does sometimes.

[SteveMax58]

why would i need to know my scout's BMI?


And maybe the more important follow-up question...why would I NOT see my player's BMI, if I am even bothering to look at my scout's BMI?

Maybe it's on another page that isnt captured by the screenshots...but that goes to much of the general criticism of the modern OOTP UI which is...I cant find the same things in the same and/or logical places most people might look for them.

I like the new screenshots of the UI better...but I wasnt a big critic of the modern(SI) UI in the first place. I have always preferred the older 6.5 look and feel...but the SI look never really bothered me.

[Markus Heinsohn]

And maybe the more important follow-up question...why would I NOT see my player's BMI, if I am even bothering to look at my scout's BMI?

Maybe it's on another page that isnt captured by the screenshots...but that goes to much of the general criticism of the modern OOTP UI which is...I cant find the same things in the same and/or logical places most people might look for them.

I like the new screenshots of the UI better...but I wasnt a big critic of the modern(SI) UI in the first place. I have always preferred the older 6.5 look and feel...but the SI look never really bothered me.

The BMI is just a part of the debug version that was used for the screenshots :)

[Markus Heinsohn]

OOTP7, the SI version. Several of us brought these issues up back last April/May or so (as I can recall), so it's not related to any specific career I created. I could start a new career tonight, run 75 years of history, and find the same things.

No offense, but I don't have OOTP8 so I can't tell you if the same issue is occurring. I hope it's not. I'd be happy to do some checking if you want to send me a copy of OOTP8 or add me as a beta-tester for this limited purpose on the new game. I'm getting pretty good at spotting them, at least from the obvious lists of above-average players (mostly pitchers is where I'm seeing the issue).

I'll definitely look into this... :)

[Markus Heinsohn]

OOTP7, the SI version. Several of us brought these issues up back last April/May or so (as I can recall), so it's not related to any specific career I created. I could start a new career tonight, run 75 years of history, and find the same things.

No offense, but I don't have OOTP8 so I can't tell you if the same issue is occurring. I hope it's not. I'd be happy to do some checking if you want to send me a copy of OOTP8 or add me as a beta-tester for this limited purpose on the new game. I'm getting pretty good at spotting them, at least from the obvious lists of above-average players (mostly pitchers is where I'm seeing the issue).

Good news: I was able to find a pretty nasty bug which causes this weird behavior. It does not only effect historicals, but other leagues as well... OOTP 9 fixes this, which results in way better overall AI :)

[Ksyrup]

Awesome news!

Is this going to let us to set the percentages almost entirely on statistics and have the AI act accordingly, or was the bug related to something else? Or ,by fixing the bug, will it allow the evaluation percentages to work better?

[Markus Heinsohn]

Awesome news!

Is this going to let us to set the percentages almost entirely on statistics and have the AI act accordingly, or was the bug related to something else? Or ,by fixing the bug, will it allow the evaluation percentages to work better?

It now works as advertised, the bug screwed the whole system basically... it works like in this example now:

Player A:
Expected OPS by ratings: .900
Current Year OPS: 1.100 in 150 PA
Last Year OPS: 0.800 in 550 PA
2 years ago: 0.900 in 600 PA

Now, the AI settings are like this:
Ratings 30%
Current Year 40%
Last Year 20%
2 years ago: 10%

OK, now, the resulting OPS is:
0.3 * 0.900 (30% of the ratings)
+ 0.12 * 1.100 (150 PA from the 500 minimum is 30%, so it uses 12% (40% * 0.3) of current stats)
+ 0.48 * 0.800 (the remaining 28% from the previous step, plus 20% last year)
+ 0.1 * 0.900
= 0.876 ... so, for the AI this guy is a hitter with an 0.876 OPS.

Hope that makes sense :) This allows you to have the AI act entirely based on stats if there are enough PA/IP for the player in the past...

[Ksyrup]

That's freaking awesome. I feel like my bit of "grognarding" finally paid off! :D

[Markus Heinsohn]

That's freaking awesome. I feel like my bit of "grognarding" finally paid off! :D

This bug was around since OOTP 2006... but I wasn't able to find it until today :)

[spleen1015]

I don't think I would be talking about that in public. :D

[Coffee Warlord]

Sweeeeeeet.

That was the deal breaker I was hoping got hunted down. Sold.

[Ksyrup]

Is the pre-order available, come and gone, or am I missing it completely? I followed the link in Marcus' first post in this thread, see some general discussion of OOPT9, but no reference to it on the OOTP Developments page. Just wondering what the status is and whether I've missed the pre-order opportunity.

[Drake]

I just pre-ordered. I am Markus's bitch.

[Drake]

dola...

Here's the link in case you didn't get the e-mail: https://www.elicense.com/ootpdevelopments/store/

[Ksyrup]

Thanks. I used to be on their list, maybe I got it and didn't realize it.

[RainMaker]

Great discussion here, sad it doesn't take place more at the OOTP forums. Seems their biggest concerns are how often a top 100 list is created and whether a scouting director should wear a suit in his screenshot.

[Young Drachma]

Great discussion here, sad it doesn't take place more at the OOTP forums. Seems their biggest concerns are how often a top 100 list is created and whether a scouting director should wear a suit in his screenshot.

OMG! But that'd be SOOO realistic d00d!

[DaddyTorgo]

sweet - with that bug hunted down i just may pre-order tonight

[Oilers9911]

OMG! But that'd be SOOO realistic d00d!

Dood no suit on scouts = EPIC FAIL. WTF +1

[Johnny93g]

Will you be releasing a patch that fixes this bug, that screwed up the whole system for OOTP8?

It now works as advertised, the bug screwed the whole system basically... it works like in this example now:

Player A:
Expected OPS by ratings: .900
Current Year OPS: 1.100 in 150 PA
Last Year OPS: 0.800 in 550 PA
2 years ago: 0.900 in 600 PA

Now, the AI settings are like this:
Ratings 30%
Current Year 40%
Last Year 20%
2 years ago: 10%

OK, now, the resulting OPS is:
0.3 * 0.900 (30% of the ratings)
+ 0.12 * 1.100 (150 PA from the 500 minimum is 30%, so it uses 12% (40% * 0.3) of current stats)
+ 0.48 * 0.800 (the remaining 28% from the previous step, plus 20% last year)
+ 0.1 * 0.900
= 0.876 ... so, for the AI this guy is a hitter with an 0.876 OPS.

Hope that makes sense :) This allows you to have the AI act entirely based on stats if there are enough PA/IP for the player in the past...

[lighthousekeeper]

if (scout.BMI > 30)
{ facegen.type = suit }
else
{ facegen.type = uniform }

[Galaril]

I just pre-ordered. I am Markus's bitch.

sweet - with that bug hunted down i just may pre-order tonight

Me too. And damn you Kysrup and FOFC! K-H-A-N !

[Galaril]

Great discussion here, sad it doesn't take place more at the OOTP forums. Seems their biggest concerns are how often a top 100 list is created and whether a scouting director should wear a suit in his screenshot.

Yeah no kidding. I couldn't believe the uproar about the f#$%ing 100 list thing and when it is created. Geez wtf! There are other things that should be focused on.

[Galaril]

Umm I hate to utter this question but I will since I couldn't remember if a release date "window" had been metioned? When is the release date?

[Coder]

...and once again the Euro-price is waaaaay higher than the USD-price.. pre-order price, special discount, $39..

I'll either buy it through proxy or have a friend buy it for me and I paypal him the money..

[21C]

...and once again the Euro-price is waaaaay higher than the USD-price.. pre-order price, special discount, $39..

I'll either buy it through proxy or have a friend buy it for me and I paypal him the money..
Yep, that is the exact reason why I never bought the last two versions - and the reason I won't be buying this version.

US$25 = $26.40 Australian
25 Euros = $41.80 AUS

What a fucking joke!

[DaddyTorgo]

you guys complaining about the exchange rate realize that that's just the way it is right? nobody complains about it when they can get things for cheaper because their currency is weak vs. the dollar, everyone complains when their currency is strong vs. the dollar and they get shafted.

I guess I don't see why one would expect a computer game to be priced at a "flat rate regardless of exchange rates" versus a physical product which wouldn't be, because at heart the computer game is still a physical product, it's physical bits of code.

As coder mentioned, there are ways around this - so use them. or don't. I paid something close to $60 USD including shipping for FM07 because the dollar was shit against the pound at that point. It's just a fact of life.

[21C]

you guys complaining about the exchange rate realize that that's just the way it is right?
And why is it just the way it is? That doesn't really make sense especially when you are discussing a digital downoad rather than a physical product.
I paid something close to $60 USD including shipping for FM07 because the dollar was shit against the pound at that point. It's just a fact of life.
And I understand this when you are talking about a boxed product (even though it is digital by nature) but it doesn't relate to this situation at all.

[bhlloy]

So the developer should give the game for cheap to people in other countries just because the exchange rate is unfavorable and there's no box? Or am I missing something?

[21C]

So just explain why it is cheaper in US$ compared to Euros when the US$ has been getting weaker against it for the last 5 years?

I'm sure you are missing something.

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=5y

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/5y?usdeur=x

[21C]

BTW I never understand why so many people get upset about people venting about this when it doesn't really affect them. Just let us vent godammit! :)

[bhlloy]

It was a serious question. I had no idea what the Euro was against the dollar. I'm sure there is a good reason for it - taxes or publisher rights maybe? I still don't see what the difference is if I get a box or not, but never mind.

Anyway, I have tens of thousands of GB pounds worth of student loans and I earn US dollars. That really sucks right now. Count yourself lucky that you only have PC games to bitch about :)

[DaddyTorgo]

So just explain why it is cheaper in US$ compared to Euros when the US$ has been getting weaker against it for the last 5 years?

I'm sure you are missing something.

http://finance.yahoo.com/currency/convert?from=USD&to=EUR&amt=1&t=5y

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/5y?usdeur=x

because the dollar does not get "weaker" in a vacumn. it gets weaker compared to other currencies. dollar-to-dollar we see the change in inflation.

[21C]

Yeah my question was a serious one as well. I just don't understand the discrepancy in the US-Canada price and the everyone else price.

[sabotai]

I must be missing something. If the Euro is stronger than the USD (IOW, if 1 Euro > 1 USD), shouldn't the price of the game in Euros be cheaper than the price of the game in USD?

If the game costs $25, then, according to current exchange rates (0.63 USD to 1 Euro), shouldn't the game cost 15.77 Euros?

[DaddyTorgo]

I must be missing something. If the Euro is stronger than the USD (IOW, if 1 Euro > 1 USD), shouldn't the price of the game in Euros be cheaper than the price of the game in USD?

If the game costs $25, then, according to current exchange rates (0.63 USD to 1 Euro), shouldn't the game cost 15.77 Euros?


yes. That would make sense wouldn't it?

[Coder]

The OOTP series has been priced at exactly €1 = $1 since SI took over. I was hoping it would be back to only being priced in USD when Marcus went into business for himself again but I guess not.

Just like Sab says, if the pricing had been following the currency rate, the price would be cheaper in Euros than in USD, but the OOTP exchange-rate has been the same for the last 3 years.

[gmoses]

I just recently bought OOTP8 and will probably play this for another six months before shifting to OOTP 9. (I'll wait a while and let you guys work out any issues. Then when I get to the end of a season I'll switch over)

My question is that since in Marcus's words "the bug screwed the whole system basically" can we expect a mini-patch to fix this one issue in OOTP8? Or is this really not that serious?

[Markus Heinsohn]

I just recently bought OOTP8 and will probably play this for another six months before shifting to OOTP 9. (I'll wait a while and let you guys work out any issues. Then when I get to the end of a season I'll switch over)

My question is that since in Marcus's words "the bug screwed the whole system basically" can we expect a mini-patch to fix this one issue in OOTP8? Or is this really not that serious?

Sorry, but the time for patching OOTP 8 is gone... also, the issue is not that big, the game is just a bit less smart that it could be :)

[cuervo72]

Sorry, but the time for patching OOTP 8 is gone... also, the issue is not that big, the game is just a bit less smart that it could be :)

As is the time for purchasing it, unfortunately for gmoses!

[Johnny93g]

Sorry, but the time for patching OOTP 8 is gone... also, the issue is not that big, the game is just a bit less smart that it could be :)

You called it a nasty bug, that screwed up the whole system basically. Now you say the issue is not that big. Which one is it?

I'm kinda put off that you won't fix the current version of your game. 40 bucks for the new one, naw, I feel ripped off enough.

[Drake]

Oh, for fuck's sake. You make it sound like this isn't the way that all software patching works.

[MizzouRah]

It is kind of funny that something BIG was supposedly found and you can get the fix in version 9!!

I know games are like that.. but it's still funny.

[rkmsuf]

It is kind of funny that something BIG was supposedly found and you can get the fix in version 9!!

I know games are like that.. but it's still funny.

Maximum Profitability

[Eaglesfan27]

It is kind of funny that something BIG was supposedly found and you can get the fix in version 9!!

I know games are like that.. but it's still funny.

Of course, that is assuming fixed really means it was fixed.

[rkmsuf]

Of course, that is assuming fixed really means it was fixed.

that's what ootp10 is for

[MizzouRah]

that's what ootp10 is for

pa-da-ta-bump!

[spleen1015]

I don't think I would be talking about that in public. :D

.

[gmoses]

Well I'm a long time fan and still have my initial copy of OOTP1. I'm sure I'll get OOTP9 at some point and I appreciate at least getting a quick answer from Marcus.

Obviously we are long past the time for normal patches to OOTP 8 or previous versions. Still it seems that if a distinct bug has already been located then why not fix it??

I guess maybe it would need to be tested. I'm sure noone wants to delay OOTP9. Maybe just make the quick fix and call it a beta patch and let interested users test it. Or perhaps when he says he's found the bug it's not as simple as changing a couple lines of code.

Or maybe it really isn't that important.

[kq76]

It now works as advertised, the bug screwed the whole system basically... it works like in this example now:

Player A:
Expected OPS by ratings: .900
Current Year OPS: 1.100 in 150 PA
Last Year OPS: 0.800 in 550 PA
2 years ago: 0.900 in 600 PA

Now, the AI settings are like this:
Ratings 30%
Current Year 40%
Last Year 20%
2 years ago: 10%

OK, now, the resulting OPS is:
0.3 * 0.900 (30% of the ratings)
+ 0.12 * 1.100 (150 PA from the 500 minimum is 30%, so it uses 12% (40% * 0.3) of current stats)
+ 0.48 * 0.800 (the remaining 28% from the previous step, plus 20% last year)
+ 0.1 * 0.900
= 0.876 ... so, for the AI this guy is a hitter with an 0.876 OPS.

Hope that makes sense This allows you to have the AI act entirely based on stats if there are enough PA/IP for the player in the past...

Markus, to allow the value to be closer to the weights people input, I'd like to recommend that you spread the left over weight over the last 2 years (when there are 2 previous years of stats), not just dumped all onto last year's.

That is, instead of .48*.800 you do (it's simpler than it looks):

((500-150)/500*.4/(the sum of the weights which might be lower than 1 if you give 0 weight to ratings)*(.2/(.2+.1))+.2/(the sum of the weights which might be lower than 1 if you give 0 weight to ratings))*.800

and instead of .1*.900 you do:

((500-150)/500*.4/(the sum of the weights which might be lower than 1 if you give 0 weight to ratings)*(.1/(.2+.1))+.1/(the sum of the weights which might be lower than 1 if you give 0 weight to ratings))*.900.

I have a spreadsheet that shows the exact formulas if it's a bit confusing that I can send you if you want. It might look a lot more complicated than yours, but it's not; I just included everything to make sure you get it. The key differences are *(.2/(.2+.1)) for last year and *(.1/(.2+.1)) for 2 years ago which spreads the left over.

Also, I'd like to make sure you're including the "/(the sum of the weights which might be lower than 1 if you give 0 weight to ratings)" part because if you don't that would seriously throw things off.

Lastly, what are you doing when there are no previous years' stats, ratings are 0 and there is only a portion played of this year? Do you use minor league stats when there are no previous years' major league stats? That would probably usually inflate the result, but I can't readily think of any other solution.

EDIT: Corrected the formula as it was difficult to transpose from the spreadsheet.

[kq76]

dola..

Regardless of the solution it strikes me as odd that the game would react so strongly to a dip in ratings. For example, way back when weights weren't given to stats at all (all to ratings), would a star player who took a dip suddenly see himself in the minors? If we're seeing this problem with 0 weight given to ratings, how bad is it when say 50% weight is given to ratings? These solutions should help early in the season especially, but I'm guessing you'll still see a problem when you give lots of weight to ratings.

[Markus Heinsohn]

dola..

Regardless of the solution it strikes me as odd that the game would react so strongly to a dip in ratings. For example, way back when weights weren't given to stats at all (all to ratings), would a star player who took a dip suddenly see himself in the minors? If we're seeing this problem with 0 weight given to ratings, how bad is it when say 50% weight is given to ratings? These solutions should help early in the season especially, but I'm guessing you'll still see a problem when you give lots of weight to ratings.

There are other factors as well, for example the contract, pro experience etc...

If there are no stats at all. the ratings are entirely used. By the way, stats include minor league stats as well (equivalencies applied), so everything is covered properly.

[Galaril]

One question I have is related the mlb Setup and the stadium dimensions for real teams in MLB. I can't remember in past versions if they were already included but for this one since the game comes with real rosters will real stadium dimensions be included? This is always a huge consideration since it generally has a huge an effect on players really performance?

[kq76]

There are other factors as well, for example the contract, pro experience etc...

If there are no stats at all. the ratings are entirely used. By the way, stats include minor league stats as well (equivalencies applied), so everything is covered properly.

Okay. As long as you given it another look.

I just have suspicions there might be something wrong with what the game does with the valuation not just how it comes up with the valuation itself.

[BIGdaddy]

Sure would like to see hitting streaks back on the stats leader board....

[Young Drachma]

One question I have is related the mlb Setup and the stadium dimensions for real teams in MLB. I can't remember in past versions if they were already included but for this one since the game comes with real rosters will real stadium dimensions be included? This is always a huge consideration since it generally has a huge an effect on players really performance?

I have a spreadsheet that lists this stuff for stadium dimensions and I've posted over there before if you search for it, you'll find it or PM me over there and I'll link you to it (darkcloud4579)

[Mantle2600]

Damnit I could'nt resist. I hope it's not disappointing like 2006 was for me.

[Galaril]

I have a spreadsheet that lists this stuff for stadium dimensions and I've posted over there before if you search for it, you'll find it or PM me over there and I'll link you to it (darkcloud4579)


But doesn't all the info still have to be manually entered for every stadium for each new association? Or can it just be put in a folder where the game will read it?

[Young Drachma]

But doesn't all the info still have to be manually entered for every stadium for each new association? Or can it just be put in a folder where the game will read it?

Yeah, manually.

[Galaril]

Yeah, manually.

Thanks for that info on the spreadsheet but that was what I was getting at as far as adding in these different stadiums ever time you have a new association. I really am surprised that more people don't bitch about this stadium dimensions stuff since as picky as the sports text sim community can be (and rightly so) about minor details this seems like a fairly signifcant one. If any of the games PS, DDTB, or OOTP are really trying to target folks who won't to play a MLB style game historically than stadiums are huge. Just look at Fenway Park and say the old Phillies stadium Veterans Park or the Astrodome. Now those places gave some vastly different player stats.

[Huckleberry]

Markus -

Will there be a league prestige rating now if you're running multiple separate leagues?

I'm interested in running a promotion/relegation league but want to make sure that players will sign at the highest level they can (if they can expect playing time). I realize that time-intensive editing of financials can accomplish it at this point, but will league prestige be an editable field?

[korme]

That's a good idea Huck.

[Anthony]

i don't see myself getting much out of a league prestige rating, and wouldn't want that to delay the release or compound the possible issues/bugs in the game. if you want relegation go play a soccer sim. i would much rather time and engergy be focused on making the game mirror professional baseball as it is currently played in real life.

[Ksyrup]

Aside from bug issues, I don't want Markus considering any issues right now other than getting the game ready for release ASAP.

[Huckleberry]

i don't see myself getting much out of a league prestige rating, and wouldn't want that to delay the release or compound the possible issues/bugs in the game. if you want relegation go play a soccer sim. i would much rather time and engergy be focused on making the game mirror professional baseball as it is currently played in real life.

A baseball game that markets its ability to replay historical seasons really should have a league prestige rating. There were multiple major leagues in the past and at one point were three major leagues including the Federal League. The particular reason I want to see it is actually irrelevant.
From what I understand, the game already has a league prestige rating that it calculates based on talent level, etc. that players utilize when making their decision on where to sign. Making this an editable field shouldn't be that difficult.
Not sure why this would concern you as far as bugs or other issues go. You clearly would not be running multiple top-level leagues so this wouldn't affect your enjoyment at all either way.
My hope is that this wouldn't take very long to do. In no way do I wish to see this hamper the overall game development process. If a game is going to offer customization then what's the problem with asking if one more setting is customizable? If you want to run a universe that is simply a carbon copy of real life then have at it. As stated above, this won't affect you one bit.And for the record, this question has been asked before. This is not a new idea that is just now being suggested. It's an improvement request that has been around for at least two years. Without an extensive feature list it's just a question that I wanted the answer to. If the answer is no I'm not going to scream at Markus until it gets added. Hell, I've already pre-ordered under the assumption that it's not a customizable field.

[Anthony]

Aside from bug issues, I don't want Markus considering any issues right now other than getting the game ready for release ASAP.

exactly.

the game is probably a month away from being released, let him tighten up the game and resolve any last remaining issues (until the general public finds all the other bugs) instead of even thinking about new features, however small they may be.

i don't think there is a very large segment of the OOTP buying public that utilizes multiple leagues in their careers. i want a game that does a great job on the MLB before it starts to think about foreign leagues.

[Huckleberry]

I simply asked if there will be an editable league prestige rating.

You replied that you really don't want him adding one.

Did I ask him to add that capability if it doesn't already exist? I asked him if it is in OOTP9. Nowhere did I ask him to add it before release if it's not already there.

Although all of a sudden I'm considering starting a crusade on the OOTP boards for it to be added before OOTP9 is released just for the hell of it.

[RainMaker]

A baseball game that markets its ability to replay historical seasons really should have a league prestige rating. There were multiple major leagues in the past and at one point were three major leagues including the Federal League. The particular reason I want to see it is actually irrelevant.
From what I understand, the game already has a league prestige rating that it calculates based on talent level, etc. that players utilize when making their decision on where to sign. Making this an editable field shouldn't be that difficult.
Not sure why this would concern you as far as bugs or other issues go. You clearly would not be running multiple top-level leagues so this wouldn't affect your enjoyment at all either way.
My hope is that this wouldn't take very long to do. In no way do I wish to see this hamper the overall game development process. If a game is going to offer customization then what's the problem with asking if one more setting is customizable? If you want to run a universe that is simply a carbon copy of real life then have at it. As stated above, this won't affect you one bit.And for the record, this question has been asked before. This is not a new idea that is just now being suggested. It's an improvement request that has been around for at least two years. Without an extensive feature list it's just a question that I wanted the answer to. If the answer is no I'm not going to scream at Markus until it gets added. Hell, I've already pre-ordered under the assumption that it's not a customizable field.

It's just a hellish feature to implement and has the potential to screw a lot of things up. Do we not remember the abortion that was 2006 when everyone jumped in with grandiose ideas for the game? It needs to get back to some semblance of real baseball and real leagues. There is a reason this game has sold for crap the last few years, and it's because ideas like that are put ahead of fixes for those who just want to run a regular baseball league.

[Huckleberry]

And I disagree that it's hellish to implement and that it would have any effect on someone that wants to run a league that mimics modern major league baseball.

If it's hellish to implement then I've already explained I don't want it to affect release and completion of OOTP9. I just doubt that it is because, as I said earlier, there is already a hidden league prestige rating in the game.

And because the rating would only be used by free agents trying to decide between offers from two different leagues it would have absolutely no effect on a single major league universe.

[Big Fo]

It was a good idea Huckleberry, no idea why everyone seems to think its a ridiculous thing to want.

The thought that its all the fans' fault that the last few versions had bugs :D :D :D

[fantom1979]

Markus -

Will there be a league prestige rating now if you're running multiple separate leagues?

I'm interested in running a promotion/relegation league but want to make sure that players will sign at the highest level they can (if they can expect playing time). I realize that time-intensive editing of financials can accomplish it at this point, but will league prestige be an editable field?

I really like this idea

[Ksyrup]

It was a good idea Huckleberry, no idea why everyone seems to think its a ridiculous thing to want.

No one's saying that. I think we are reacting to the timing of the request given Marcus' well-known character flaw of trying to please everyone and taking on little side projects like this at the last minute (no offense, Marcus, but sometimes you're a bit TOO willing to implement fan requests at the drop of a hat). Now that the game is about to come out, I'd prefer he put something like this on the backburner as an idea to be worked on for a second or third patch. I don't care if it's added, but I do care about when it's added.