Update on Patch #2!

[mrpoopistan]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Which is fine. Buy 25 early and get it on sale. Then keep playing 24 until 25 is where you want it to be. Then switch.

Hence the "meh"

[williamj_52]

what is happening with the second patch now

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by williamj_52

what is happening with the second patch now

Here's the latest update we got from the hosting company on Sunday:

24.03.2024 UPDATE:
We would like to inform you about the current state of recovery work following the recent failure of the Strasbourg data centre.
Our teams work tirelessly around the clock, 24/7 to bring the systems back online. We are pleased to announce that the DNA situation has improved significantly.
However, we must inform you that the external company tasked with removing the damaged batteries has found that power cables were destroyed by the fire in the battery room. These power cables connect the DC room in which your server is located.
To repair this damage, we have commissioned a company to supply new power cables. They weigh 19 tonnes and must be transported by truck. Unfortunately, due to traffic restrictions and the impossibility for special vehicles, we have to drive on Sunday, we have to wait until Monday morning at 8 am for their arrival.
Unfortunately, this means that we cannot expect a complete recovery of the power supply before Tuesday morning. We sincerely apologize for the inconvenience caused to you as a result of this delay and assure you that we will do everything in our power to accelerate the process.
We will keep you informed as soon as new information is received.

Because we don't trust them anymore, we have in the meantime begun to set up new build servers from backups. This sounds straigtforward, but is a ton of work. We even pulled Andreas out of retirement so he can help with this... We should be done with this later today if all goes well, so that we'd have a public beta probably on Tuesday at the latest.

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

We should be done with this later today if all goes well, so that we'd have a public beta probably on Tuesday at the latest.

Sh*t happens.

Thanks for the update Markus.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Francoeurstein

I really hope this is the main issue fixed with the next patch. The game is borderline unplayable with the total lack of development.

We'll have quite a few adjustments in the next patch that should make this all feel a lot better, but even as it is it's a real stretch to describe things as unplayable.

The main issue with development is really just that there are not enough guys that break out and end up the majors/high minors at 20-22 right now.

Beyond that, almost too many players do eventually develop well though, it just takes them a little longer, more until 24-26 (which is when most players peak in real life).

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by TheBrewCrew

Is there a fix for the schedules for after year one? Everything is off by a day still.

Can you let us know what game mode, year etc you're seeing this in?

EDIT:

There is an option to start on a certain weekday, which is disabled by default in the 2024 rosters. If you just turn that on, it should 'fix' this for you for next year.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by TheBrewCrew

Jonnhan Sanchez - LF - Mets
Jensy Rivas/Yensi Rivas - Mets

Two examples I could think of right away. I know there are a couple more where one version has a tilde and one doesn't, forgot who they are tho. I can look tomorrow.

If you see stuff like this, please report it here. It makes it much easier to keep track and fix things up to have all this in one place.

Thanks!

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

We'll have quite a few adjustments in the next patch that should make this all feel a lot better, but even as it is it's a real stretch to describe things as unplayable.

The main issue with development is really just that there are not enough guys that break out and end up the majors/high minors at 20-22 right now.

Beyond that, almost too many players do eventually develop well though, it just takes them a little longer, more until 24-26 (which is when most players peak in real life).

Appreciate your communication but I think that a lot of people would find this unplayable. I know I do.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

Appreciate your communication but I think that a lot of people would find this unplayable. I know I do.

Because MLB generally has something like 15 less 20-22 year olds than real life, that makes the whole game unplayable?

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but that's a tough take.

Anyway, like I said, this should feel significantly better in the patch.

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Because MLB generally has something like 15 less 20-22 year olds than real life, that makes the whole game unplayable?

You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but that's a tough take.

Anyway, like I said, this should feel significantly better in the patch.

What I’ve experienced is worse than you described. Regardless of the specifics, the way it works is vastly different from years before. Something about it is certainly broken. I’m not complaining but I am simply stating that this is the second year in a row I’ve pre-ordered, played the game early/first week of release, then found it to have AI issues that make it not playable. You guys eventually ironed it out and I’m sure you will again, but clearly some people feel this way and it’s valid.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

What I’ve experienced is worse than you described. Regardless of the specifics, the way it works is vastly different from years before. Something about it is certainly broken. I’m not complaining but I am simply stating that this is the second year in a row I’ve pre-ordered, played the game early/first week of release, then found it to have AI issues that make it not playable. You guys eventually ironed it out and I’m sure you will again, but clearly some people feel this way and it’s valid.

Fair enough. I don't think we're saying it's not valid in the least. I don't want to end up arguing over the semantics of the definition of 'unplayable', which isn't so helpful to anyone and for sure, everyone will have a different valid definition of the word for them.

Long story short, the balance was definitely off a bit, and so we've put a lot of time and effort into making adjustments for the patch. And there definitely has been quite a bit more we've worked on and improved than just then too few really young players.

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Maybe the pre-release team of testers can be expanded next year.

The issues with 25 were quickly identified as per what I read here on the forum the past ≈ 2 weeks.

I'm sure enough of us would be willing to assist.

Just a thought.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Paul Reuschel's Mustache

Maybe the pre-release team of testers can be expanded next year.

The issues with 25 were quickly identified as per what I read here on the forum the past ≈ 2 weeks.

I'm sure enough of us would be willing to assist.

Just a thought.

We expanded the beta team a lot last year and we'll definitely expand again next year. We'd be very happy to add more folks willing to help out!

We also had a much longer testing period than previously this year, and I think that overall helped a lot. I'm sure we'll do the same next year.

The thing is, no matter how many testers there are, the bottleneck becomes how many folks we have to actually do the coding and work and how much time there is in the day.

Development for example is something we were continuously working on adjusting throughout beta and was already on our list of things to work on more in the first couple patches even before anyone commented on this.

It's just a very complicated area of the game and anytime you make a tweak or a change here, there always ends up being some more tweaks and changes needed in the other direction. So it takes a lot of time and effort, a lot of trial and error to reach the proper balance, and sometimes we can just run out of time to get things perfectly balanced before release.

[Reed]

Originally Posted by Paul Reuschel's Mustache

Maybe the pre-release team of testers can be expanded next year.

The issues with 25 were quickly identified as per what I read here on the forum the past ≈ 2 weeks.

I'm sure enough of us would be willing to assist.

Just a thought.

Or just a larger time frame (2 weeks?) between the early (beta) release (while game is on sale) and official release when game goes to regular price? Have the early release available on steam? Maybe not call it early release (Maybe preseason or spring training) but make sure buyers are aware it is not the “official” release.

[BestbatBoy]

So why aren't we allowed to post anything remotely critical of this game without having our posts censored?

[Paul Reuschel's Mustache]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

It's just a very complicated area of the game and anytime you make a tweak or a change here, there always ends up being some more tweaks and changes needed in the other direction. So it takes a lot of time and effort, a lot of trial and error to reach the proper balance, and sometimes we can just run out of time to get things perfectly balanced before release.

I can't code, unfortunately.

Maybe have a cut-off of 3 months prior to scheduled release for implementing new features that can potentially cause major "side effects" in other parts of the game.

Once sufficiently tested, these delayed new features can then be rolled out at a later point without destabilizing the overall gameplay.

I understand that there's a relatively small team behind this great game and that these things can happen. Let us know how we can help.

[Jordan]

Originally Posted by BestbatBoy

So why aren't we allowed to post anything remotely critical of this game without having our posts censored?

If you read this thread, you would find exactly the opposite of what you described

[spartacus007]

No offense, but these issues are pretty small for a sports sim game -- heck, even most AAA games are buggier than this at launch.

Yes, I'm waiting a couple weeks before starting a new historical sim, but that's good practice every year.

Calling it "unplayable" or saying someone should be fired b/c the historical ratings need adjusting is hyperbolic and drown out legitimate bug reporting from the community.

In my experience, the team does a good job of listening to criticism and adjusting. A few other players and I instantly criticized the way NeL players were rated in OOTP25, and that was changed in the next patch. OOTP25 overall makes a huge number of changes that historical sim players have been asking for.

[ChrisJNelson]

Originally Posted by spartacus007

Calling it "unplayable" or saying someone should be fired b/c the historical ratings need adjusting is hyperbolic and drown out legitimate bug reporting from the community.

Calling for people to be fired (which I haven’t seen) or being a dick to devs is uncalled for.

Calling the game “unplayable” is not hyperbolic. Just because the game boots up and runs on my PC doesn’t mean it accomplishes the goal of being a satisfying sim.

I love this game and will always support the devs but as of now, this game is unplayable for me due to the issues being discussed here like player development, and clearly I’m not the only one that thinks so.

I get how hard tweaking this game is but that change the fact that it’s a bummer I can’t enjoy it because of these issues at present.

[SidHickenbottom]

Originally Posted by ChrisJNelson

What I’ve experienced is worse than you described. Regardless of the specifics, the way it works is vastly different from years before. Something about it is certainly broken. I’m not complaining but I am simply stating that this is the second year in a row I’ve pre-ordered, played the game early/first week of release, then found it to have AI issues that make it not playable. You guys eventually ironed it out and I’m sure you will again, but clearly some people feel this way and it’s valid.

I'm concerned with the problem being framed as "not having enough 20-22 year olds" in the bigs. Development issues, especially in fictional leagues, seem far more severe that than over time. I guess that's not "unplayable," of course, but it leaves a player very unlikely to start a save they plan to stick with.