OOTP 9 features announced

[Galaril]

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-9-update.html

[korme]

Also, Heath Ledger died

[SnowMan]

Not sure a "small update" counts as a feature list. But it is good to see an official post on the game, was starting to wonder how progress was going.

[Ksyrup]

- Even more improved historical league support, resulting in pretty much perfect results


Having done this as long as he has, why would he tout something like this?

The chance to get this for $25 in the pre-order period is nice, but I also realize that the biggest issues I had with the game were either ignored or looked at and determined not to be issues, so I really think I'll just pass this time around. At least that's what I'm saying now...

[Nugget699]

Promotion/Relegation, My kingdom for Promotion/Relegation

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

- Even more improved historical league support, resulting in pretty much perfect results


Having done this as long as he has, why would he tout something like this?

It has to be something lost in the translation. That is, an inability to use nuance and to know what words to use to keep expectations even keeled. Maybe not, but that's the only thing I can think of.

[Big Fo]

Originally Posted by Nugget699

Promotion/Relegation, My kingdom for Promotion/Relegation

That would be awesome, as would the ability to implement an NFL style playoff system with bye rounds.

[DanGarion]

MLB 2008 Rosters, and people are bitching still... WTF? Isn't this a first?

[Rizon]

No H2H?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by dangarion

MLB 2008 Rosters, and people are bitching still... WTF? Isn't this a first?

What does having 2008 rosters have to do with bitching about things that have nothing to do with rosters?

And yeah, I'd say that since the 2008 baseball season hasn't even begun yet, that having 2008 rosters is a first for OOTP.

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by dangarion

MLB 2008 Rosters, and people are bitching still... WTF? Isn't this a first?

Yes, they are being included- but if they're just a re-hash update of the 2007 version included with "OOTP 8"- then no thanks...Those are just a mess. Sim a year or two and watch as almost all players fielding ability over the age of 28 nosedives from a 90/100 to 20/100. I am not sure what's wrong- but it's a mess- along with a host of other problems not worth mentioning here.

I appreciate the effort- but I am starting to wonder if it's even a worthwhile task to make real rosters (and I consider them a must-have). This game is so complicated that it just gets in its own way too often.

It's interesting that a lot of people think real rosters are pointless- but the reality is it's much easier to diagnose a flawed game using the real rosters as wierd trades/AI decisions stick out like a proverbial turd in a punch bowl as opposed to using a bunch of no-names and never recognizing a bad AI move unless you stumble on it. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Anyway, here's hoping they spend a little more time making sure it works right when all is said and done...

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

What does having 2008 rosters have to do with bitching about things that have nothing to do with rosters?

And yeah, I'd say that since the 2008 baseball season hasn't even begun yet, that having 2008 rosters is a first for OOTP.

But regardless most people always bitch about what the game doesn't have instead of being happy for what it does have. I mean no one is putting a gun to your head making you buy it.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Yes, they are being included- but if they're just a re-hash update of the 2007 version included with "OOTP 8"- then no thanks...Those are just a mess. Sim a year or two and watch as almost all players fielding ability over the age of 28 nosedives from a 90/100 to 20/100. I am not sure what's wrong- but it's a mess- along with a host of other problems not worth mentioning here.

I appreciate the effort- but I am starting to wonder if it's even a worthwhile task to make real rosters (and I consider them a must-have). This game is so complicated that it just gets in its own way too often.

It's interesting that a lot of people think real rosters are pointless- but the reality is it's much easier to diagnose a flawed game using the real rosters as wierd trades/AI decisions stick out like a proverbial turd in a punch bowl as opposed to using a bunch of no-names and never recognizing a bad AI move unless you stumble on it. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

Anyway, here's hoping they spend a little more time making sure it works right when all is said and done...

Honestly that doesn't sound like a roster issue if the game does that. Of course I never noticed that happen in mine...

[dervack]

Originally Posted by BigPapi

Yes, they are being included- but if they're just a re-hash update of the 2007 version included with "OOTP 8"- then no thanks...

It's not.

[Ksyrup]

I don't play with real CURRENT rosters, but exclusively with historical rosters. I've seen some questionable trades, but really, that doesn't bother me so much. Within the confines of the game and what I understand of the AI's evaluation of players, I can pretty much make sense of all the trades I've seen. I have much bigger issues with the way ratings tie to player usage/demotion/trade value.

As I posted recently in another thread, the game gives us options to control the extent to which ratings factor into AI decisions, but regardless, the AI makes pro-active decisions based on small changes in ratings, regardless of how little emphasis is put on ratings. I've seen Cy Young winners cut before the next year, or 18 game winners demoted to the minors the next year, and then called up again the year after that to perform to the same standards they had previously. Marcus apparently looked at these issues last year and declared there wasn't a problem. Makes no sense to me AT ALL.

[korme]

Whenever I play a historical replay, I always find "dumb trades" acceptable. Just look at all of the ones in real life.

[Galaril]

Wow, I am getting the feeling the this venerable franchise might be going the way of a slow death. People are just "aheh" about this game when in years past there was quite a buzz. I think the move to SI and taking that crap interface has irrereparably damaged the game for most.

[Ksyrup]

This stuff is so hard to find if you're not tracking it as you find it or scouring the league looking for it (especially like me, when I'm mostly fast simming), but here are some examples of what I'm talking about:

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...



I found these just by reviewing about 75% of the Cy Young winners from both leagues. And there were several others that were arguable, where there was a slippage in their stats, but they still were starting 30+ games a year, and then nothing the next year. But these seem pretty clear-cut problematic and/or bizarre to me. According to Marcus...stuff like this is apparently normal.

*sigh*

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Wow, I am getting the feeling the this venerable franchise might be going the way of a slow death. People are just "aheh" about this game when in years past there was quite a buzz. I think the move to SI and taking that crap interface has irrereparably damaged the game for most.

Crap interface? Wow. It might be cluttered, but it's not crap. It's far more polished than what the game used to have and without SI, it never would've happened.

If he could survive pre-SI, surely he'll survive in the era without them. Even if the same missteps are made, which remain to be seen how the game comes out in the end.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Crap interface? Wow. It might be cluttered, but it's not crap. It's far more polished than what the game used to have and without SI, it never would've happened.

If he could survive pre-SI, surely he'll survive in the era without them. Even if the same missteps are made, which remain to be seen how the game comes out in the end.

Alright crap is not fair but I would say that the SI interface is far from perfect.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Alright crap is not fair but I would say that the SI interface is far from perfect.

Oh, it is far from perfect. But what he had before was a lot less than ideal. Of course, we're on the FOF boards, so I realize some folks actually prefer say, the UI of FOF to anything.

I don't need whiz bang or anything, but I expect things to be consistent, clean and if they actually look a bit better than "average" then I'm cool with that. I think the SI interface gives him a hell of a lot to work with, especially compared to what he had before.

Whether he manages to streamline it or do anything huge with the changes are beyond me, but...who am I to judge with anything other than my wallet.

[Ksyrup]

The whole thing where you have SION pages different than the whole other set of pages is/was horribly thought out. There are mapping issues where you can get to similar information, but the pages you get to have slight differences in what they provide. Having two sets of player pages is bizarre, and especially when I play historical leagues and want to compare real history with the simmed history, it's a pain in the butt trying to go between the player card and the in-game player profile that has their real stats - the profile's layout of simmed stats is nowhere near as nice/easy to view as the player card...oh, except for the history section, where the profile separates out the awards but the SION card doesn't!!!.

Here's an example of lunacy. You want to view the league's history? There are 2 ways that I see - (1) from the League Home Page, click the History button to the far right on the bar just below the SION ad. But where's the Hall of Fame? Oh, you want the history you can view (2) from the League Tab at the top, drop down and click History. THERE's the Hall of Fame, on a tab right ABOVE the SION ad...that doesn't exist from the other way of getting to the history (unless you take a specific route from the one history page to the other). Confused? You should be. Two different history links, with some different info depending on which way you go.

So let's stick with HoFers for a minute...let's say I want to view the HoFers and be able to sort them by most hits, or ABs, or most saves, or IP, or whatever. Follow the one link that has the Hall of Fame on a tab at the top, and what do you get? A non-sortable list of HoFers in "profile" view. Surely there's a way to view them in sortable fashion, right? Yep - but you have to go back to the league history, hit "awards" and there is the list of HOFers in a SION page ("register") format, sortable and everything. But wait! Where's the individual All-Star, MVP, Cy Young, and Gold Glove info? Not on this page - it's on the OTHER, non-sortable HoF page!

Awful, just awful.

[Eaglesfan27]

Ksyrup has perfectly summarized 3 of my biggest issues with the game in this thread:

1. I also see terrible demotion decisions based on ratings declining no matter what settings I use for weighing of stats.
2. The issue of SION pages and the "other" pages is a horrible decision.
3. Markus overpromises and underdelivers.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

The whole thing where you have SION pages different than the whole other set of pages is/was horribly thought out. There are mapping issues where you can get to similar information, but the pages you get to have slight differences in what they provide. Having two sets of player pages is bizarre, and especially when I play historical leagues and want to compare real history with the simmed history, it's a pain in the butt trying to go between the player card and the in-game player profile that has their real stats - the profile's layout of simmed stats is nowhere near as nice/easy to view as the player card...oh, except for the history section, where the profile separates out the awards but the SION card doesn't!!!.

Here's an example of lunacy. You want to view the league's history? There are 2 ways that I see - (1) from the League Home Page, click the History button to the far right on the bar just below the SION ad. But where's the Hall of Fame? Oh, you want the history you can view (2) from the League Tab at the top, drop down and click History. THERE's the Hall of Fame, on a tab right ABOVE the SION ad...that doesn't exist from the other way of getting to the history (unless you take a specific route from the one history page to the other). Confused? You should be. Two different history links, with some different info depending on which way you go.

So let's stick with HoFers for a minute...let's say I want to view the HoFers and be able to sort them by most hits, or ABs, or most saves, or IP, or whatever. Follow the one link that has the Hall of Fame on a tab at the top, and what do you get? A non-sortable list of HoFers in "profile" view. Surely there's a way to view them in sortable fashion, right? Yep - but you have to go back to the league history, hit "awards" and there is the list of HOFers in a SION page ("register") format, sortable and everything. But wait! Where's the individual All-Star, MVP, Cy Young, and Gold Glove info? Not on this page - it's on the OTHER, non-sortable HoF page!

Awful, just awful.

I don't disagree with any of this. But I guess I'd prefer to have the information than not. I think there are some information architecture issue that need to be fixed, but that's not interface to me.

But I agree with all of it. And I'd add that I think it's too hard to publish a web site of your league OR to get statistics of particular things.

It should be one-touch simple to be able to publish information related to your team or league in printable format and right now, it's downright cumbersome to do anything like that for most things. It makes immersion difficult and as a result, turns the game into an albatross.

[Ksyrup]

Oh, I want the info, and I'm glad it's in the game. It's getting there that's the problem. I remember when the HoF thing happened to me, I literally spent 20 minutes looking for the tab at the top of the page because I knew I saw it before and it was driving me crazy. And when you put the game down and pick it up months later, all those little issues like this that I had down when I was playing, I no longer remember, and I'm right back to the frustration of trying to remember how I got to particular pages.

Mapping, interface, whatever you want to call it...it needs to change.

Here's another great one that infuriated me to no end...

Say I want to view a team's batting/pitching stats. If I go to the Home League page and click on a team, I get a set of links on the right side of the page. So I click on batting stats. OK, now I want to view pitching stats. I have to go back to the other page to get that link. Why?

OH NO says one of the guys over at OOTP's board - you can just click the "Select Report" button at the top of the batting stats, pick the next report you want to view, and you don't have to go back to the other page. BUT WAIT! I point out to him that he's right - IF you've started from the Manager Home Page and click a team report link. THEN you get the "select report" drop-down menu. BUT if you start at the League Home Page, pick a team, pick a report...there's no drop-down menu.

Wha?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Oh, I want the info, and I'm glad it's in the game. It's getting there that's the problem. I remember when the HoF thing happened to me, I literally spent 20 minutes looking for the tab at the top of the page because I knew I saw it before and it was driving me crazy. And when you put the game down and pick it up months later, all those little issues like this that I had down when I was playing, I no longer remember, and I'm right back to the frustration of trying to remember how I got to particular pages.

Mapping, interface, whatever you want to call it...it needs to change.

Here's another great one that infuriated me to no end...

Say I want to view a team's batting/pitching stats. If I go to the Home League page and click on a team, I get a set of links on the right side of the page. So I click on batting stats. OK, now I want to view pitching stats. I have to go back to the other page to get that link. Why?

OH NO says one of the guys over at OOTP's board - you can just click the "Select Report" button at the top of the batting stats, pick the next report you want to view, and you don't have to go back to the other page. BUT WAIT! I point out to him that he's right - IF you've started from the Manager Home Page and click a team report link. THEN you get the "select report" drop-down menu. BUT if you start at the League Home Page, pick a team, pick a report...there's no drop-down menu.

Wha?

I'm with you on this. It's a real pain in the ass. No two-ways about that.

[Buccaneer]

But I guess I'd prefer to have the information than not.

Not when you're playing strictly historical. Having all of the overloaded sabermetric information becomes anachronistic. Playing a historical league, like in the Golden Age, with OOTP 2006/7/8 is simply playing modern baseball with players and a league in throwback mode.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Not when you're playing strictly historical. Having all of the overloaded sabermetric information becomes anachronistic. Playing a historical league, like in the Golden Age, with OOTP 2006/7/8 is simply playing modern baseball with players and a league in throwback mode.

Yeah, I rarely do this. Other than to get history for my league. But I agree the game does overdo it with the sabermetrics. But you've got kids writing 30-page papers convincing Markus that VORP is the new black and do, he goes with it. Whatever works. Who needs HRs, RBI and SB when you have Jamesian Discourse on the Ethics of Scrappiness or some shit.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Not when you're playing strictly historical. Having all of the overloaded sabermetric information becomes anachronistic. Playing a historical league, like in the Golden Age, with OOTP 2006/7/8 is simply playing modern baseball with players and a league in throwback mode.

I'm not sure I follow. The info is there, it's up to you to decide what to do with it. Are you saying you'd rather decide who plays based solely on HR/RBI/BA - then do it. As far as the AI, there's a "traditional" setting that has the AI make lineup decisions that aren't sabermetrically-inclined.

The new stats are just combinations of numbers. You can go back to 1902 and run all the VORP numbers for the players - it's not like those numbers don't exist, they just weren't calculated and used back then. And it's totally up to you to ignore them. And, of course, part of the fun of replaying history might be (for some people) what they'd do differently with the information of today.

[Buccaneer]

K, what I was thinking of is mostly the R/L splits. They didn't keep them, the AI in 5 doesn't do anything with them and the best option is to bring in lahman with generic R/L splits. After 5, the game forces you into seeing R/L splits, regardless if you want them or not. I don't have any problems with OBP, SLG and OPS and use those extensively. As said before, there is too much information on the main screens and reports, once you find them. For fast-simmers like myself, a text sim has to flow easily instead of getting bogged down in the information being presented (look at FBCB as a perfect example). Additional information should be available, as an option, but not in the regular flow of screens and reports. Regardless of the quality of AI between 5 and 2008, compare them side-by-side and you'll see what I mean. For fast historical simmers, 5 works better with Reduced Ratings.

[Ksyrup]

Huh, I completely ignore L/R splits. The only place I know I see them is in the stats at the bottom of the page in the player profile, but I hate looking at stats in that small space (and having to scroll to see the 3 years' worth of stats), so I usually pull up the full stats from the tab at the top, or just pull up a player's card to see the SION page layout. I can't say I've ever looked at or considered L/R splits while playing the game (the little I've actually played it; mostly I just sim and view history).

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by dervack

It's not.

Do you mind if I ask how you know this? Given the amount of time Erich put into these rosters- it's hard for me to believe this isn't the base for the new set....But I would be elated to find out you are correct!

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Honestly that doesn't sound like a roster issue if the game does that. Of course I never noticed that happen in mine...

I should have been more clear: This isn't typically an issue with default rosters- so presumably something is amiss in the roster itself- though, it's also possible that the roster is causeing the game itself to function incorrectly....Either way, this roster set is unworkable.

[BigPapi]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Ksyrup has perfectly summarized 3 of my biggest issues with the game in this thread:

1. I also see terrible demotion decisions based on ratings declining no matter what settings I use for weighing of stats.
2. The issue of SION pages and the "other" pages is a horrible decision.
3. Markus overpromises and underdelivers.

Well put- but in addition (as KSyrup has pointed out)- Markus is either unaware of baseball nuance- or blindly faithful to his platfrom... Either way, his stubborn refusal to even acknowledge huge issues (see 1. above) depresses me. How can he deny that this a problem? If I set player evaluation at 0%- then dammit, I don't want to see the 2011 Cy Young award winner demoted becasue his stuff rating dropped 3 ticks before spring training 2012 even begins.......ARRGGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[Ksyrup]

If Marcus could get that one thing working, I'd live with the mapping/design issues. To have a game where you can tell the AI to base decisions totally (or almost completely) on stats, and have it act reasonably reactive in making lineup/demotion/trade decisions, would be awesome. I don't know if it's possible, but it's in this game, therefore not only promised but included as a working feature. But it doesn't work, and Marcus refuses to acknowledge it despite obvious evidence to the contrary.

That said, I stopped trying to convince him within a month or two of 2K7's release. Maybe he's revisited the issue? I rarely visit or post over on that board anymore.

[Buccaneer]

K, it was my understanding that 6 onwards, you only saw the splits in the lineup screen, whereas in 5, you saw combined. Is this incorrect? In 5 (and some in 6), I managed everything through the lineup and depth chart screens.

[RainMaker]

2008 rosters only matter if they work well with the game. If the Yankees are going to release then sign Derek Jeter 10 times during a season, I'll pass. If Cy Young award winners are being delegated to AAA the following year, I'll pass. And if every players fielding ratings go down to 0 in a few years, I'll pass.

It's not as much about the rosters as it is about rosters that work. There are sets out right now for the game, but they just don't play well.

The other changes are encouraging, although I hope Marcus is going back to how he handled the games in the past, not after some forum members got a hold of his ears and started giving him over-the-top ideas.

[Ksyrup]

The Cy Young winner demotion issue is not limited to 2008 rosters. It's a problem with the game, period.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

K, it was my understanding that 6 onwards, you only saw the splits in the lineup screen, whereas in 5, you saw combined. Is this incorrect? In 5 (and some in 6), I managed everything through the lineup and depth chart screens.

I've played the game so little that I honestly couldn't tell you. I started playing a game last year with the Tigers in 1903 and got up through 1913, then got sick of some of the issues I saw and stopped. The other 95% of the time, I've basically used the game as an historical simmer. I sim a variety of historical scenarios and simply view the results. And even when I played the game, I still simmed week-by-week, so I'm not sure I've ever seen the in-game lineup screen for 2K7.

The one thing I devoted a substantial amount of time to - all for nothing, it turned out - was trying to replicate the Federal League in a "What If?" scenario, where the Federal League ran concurrently with the real MLB, and instead of ending in 2 years, continued on. What I wanted to do was still limit the player universe to just MLB players, shared between the 2 leagues. It worked for a while, but somewhere in the 40s or 50s, the FL ran out of starting pitchers and ended up with some crazy pitching stats. I think I ran that first league through 1970-something, and it was neat seeing who ended up in what league (or, once released, who switched leagues and how they performed). It took a ton of effort to get the original 1914 and 1915 FL team rosters correct, which I did, and then let the game go from there. I still think it's a cool idea and will probably pick it up again, but I'll have to figure out how to fix the issues. But that's the kind of thing this game is capable of, which is why it still draws me in despite the frustrations I've mentioned.