Quote:
Originally Posted by md40022
|
Every year dozens of people complain there are too many injuries, even though there are actually far less injuries in-game than in real life. Dozens of others tell us that they don't like the default injury settings because these actually lead to fewer injuries than real-life (which is true).
There are plenty of other areas of the game where this is true as well. Just the fact that a few folks think there's a problem somewhere, does not mean there absolutely is one. It might mean that, but we have to verify it before we can act on it.
To verify, all we can go by is the data we have. Right now, our outputs tell us what amount of pickoffs there are in-game, and they're absolutely similar to real life. We also don't see issues with too many pickoffs in our countless hours of in-game testing.
So what should we do? Go against the data we have and 'fix' something that may not even be broken because a handful of folks insist we should based on nothing more than anecdotal information?
Plenty of other times in the past, when we've had someone complain something was off, when we actually go and look things up, it turns out it is not off. Sometimes we've jumped the gun and made changes too quickly when folks point something out they're sure is wrong, and then we have to redo them again.
So before we make major changes, we first need to make sure there's an actual problem. Otherwise, we can just jump in, go on your say so and decrease pickoffs by a lot. Then you'll be happy, but in a week or two, we'll have another thread with other folks complaining pickoffs are unrealistically low in-game.
Then it turns into a vicious circle of edit and counter-edit to an area of the game that was perfectly fine to begin with, until things end up at a point where no one's happy.
One game with three pickoffs no more proves there's a problem with too many pickoffs in-game than one game with a single player hitting four home runs proves there are too many home runs in the game. Both things can happen in reality, if only rarely.
If you want to convince us there's a problem that requires changes beyond what our data says and what our tests say, then you have to actually give us a substantial amount of data to work with, enough to prove there's an actual issue. Not just anecdotal evidence from single games or incredibly small sample sizes. Otherwise, there's just nothing substantial enough for us to act on.