Quote:
|
I understand flanjoe. I played OOTP from the beginning and while liking the game immensely I just couldn't get completely into it until I started using fictional players 2 years ago. I have carried over my universe from 9 to 10 to 11.
|
I do, too. That's why I bought Action! last year. I believe Action! is a superior replay game. At the same time, having that game has highlighted OOTP's many advantages over STRAT and ACTION. After playing some very strict replay seasons, I now enjoy seeing a star player's career take an unexpected turn for the worse. Since I play in God mode, such fluctuations-- as long as they are a sprinkling, not a dousing-- adds to the fun of trading, re-signs, etc.
On a related note, that very reason is why I wonder if scouts suffer from too much variation. in OOTP? Most scouts can easily see a player's tools. The mental aspect of a player's game usually accounts for over-achieving, or under-achieving. Look at players with year long slumps. Look at pitchers afraid to throw inside. Look at runners who learn to get a great jump and become fine base stealers.
I tend to think that playing without scouts may better mirror the real-life scouting situation versus playing with scouting on. I have a business associate who played in the minors and did some spring training coaching with the Brewers. I asked him once, what percentage of guys in A had the physical talent to play in the majors. I think he said somewhere between 10-20%. AA? Maybe 50% (the jump from single A to double A is the biggest in organized baseball, he claimed). AAA? Probably 80% had the physical tools.