I Don't Think I Like OOTP 17

[The_Knuckler]

First and foremost, let me just say that I've been playing OOTP since some of the first iterations of the game. I've always been a huge fan. However, this is one of the most frustrating and difficult versions of OOTP. Allow me to explain.

The coach rating system seems to be pointless. I'll hire coaches with "Excellent" or "Good" ratings. I'll sign them to long contracts, because I figure they'll be good fits in my system. Some of these coaches have little to no experience, but some have an established track record. After one or two bad seasons, their ratings will drop significantly to "Average" or "Fair". What is the point of a rating system for coaches if it only measures past performances. A great coach doesn't suddenly become a poor coach because he's managing a team that's struggling or rebuilding. This is very frustrating.

The team chemistry aspect is a great concept that enhances the realism of this game, but seems to be poorly executed. My team will start performing poorly all of a sudden, and players complain that "another player is outspoken" and damaging morale. However, it does not indicate at all who may be the problem so you can deal with that specific player. Essentially, it's a guessing game as to who you need address on the team.

Player ratings seem to be meaningless. I have pitchers and batters with good (sometimes great) ratings and they still end up performing poorly fairly consistently. I figure I may as well turn off the rating system altogether and simply rely on statistics.

I have loved OOTP for a great amount of time, but there really seems to be no rhyme or reason with the latest iteration of the game. I can appreciate that the developers are trying to make this more complex and challenging. But when you make a game that seems like success comes by complete chance and luck, it really starts to lose its appeal.

Anyway, just wanted to express my thoughts. Hopefully someone in the know will see this and explain what it is that I might be missing.

[PoopyJoe69]

Originally Posted by The_Knuckler

First and foremost, let me just say that I've been playing OOTP since some of the first iterations of the game. I've always been a huge fan. However, this is one of the most frustrating and difficult versions of OOTP. Allow me to explain.

The coach rating system seems to be pointless. I'll hire coaches with "Excellent" or "Good" ratings. I'll sign them to long contracts, because I figure they'll be good fits in my system. Some of these coaches have little to no experience, but some have an established track record. After one or two bad seasons, their ratings will drop significantly to "Average" or "Fair". What is the point of a rating system for coaches if it only measures past performances. A great coach doesn't suddenly become a poor coach because he's managing a team that's struggling or rebuilding. This is very frustrating.

The team chemistry aspect is a great concept that enhances the realism of this game, but seems to be poorly executed. My team will start performing poorly all of a sudden, and players complain that "another player is outspoken" and damaging morale. However, it does not indicate at all who may be the problem so you can deal with that specific player. Essentially, it's a guessing game as to who you need address on the team.

Player ratings seem to be meaningless. I have pitchers and batters with good (sometimes great) ratings and they still end up performing poorly fairly consistently. I figure I may as well turn off the rating system altogether and simply rely on statistics.

I have loved OOTP for a great amount of time, but there really seems to be no rhyme or reason with the latest iteration of the game. I can appreciate that the developers are trying to make this more complex and challenging. But when you make a game that seems like success comes by complete chance and luck, it really starts to lose its appeal.

Anyway, just wanted to express my thoughts. Hopefully someone in the know will see this and explain what it is that I might be missing.

I honestly agree with you about two of the three points you brough up. My first copy of OOTP was last year's version, and I definitely get those. Even if the team chemistry system affects the actual play of the team as little as some people say, it still is rather annoying to get constant notifications saying "The bickering in the clubhouse is worse than middle school!" and not getting any more input than that. This annoyance is multiplied when there is no clear-cut cancer on the team, forcing you to just throw up your hands and hope the team rides a hot streak out of it.

To a lesser extent, I also agree with you on the coach rating system not being too terribly helpful. While I do appreciate the change of not being able to see the coaches ratings for every little thing, the whole "reputation" system, aka "how good the the team was when I was affiliated with it" system isn't very informative. I think a happy medium could be found between the two.

Lastly, I actually have to disagree with the player ratings. I think that the ratings as they are now are supposed to be more guideline than a steadfast predictor of how the players will play. You're more likely to find better players with better ratings, but the scouting might still be wrong, much like in real life. All in all, I still like the game, I just like the changes less than ootp 16

[Padreman]

There's always room for change and to enhance and improve the game gentlemen. Let us wait and see. I do orris mmy hate the point about the clubhouse bickering. Even with 3 players with captain personalities and it did nothing and I hate vague it is

[edm]

I dont pay attention to team chemistry. To be honest, I disable the personality and morale stuff, so I'm not even sure if team chemistry is on in my game. Same thing with coaching, I have it disabled, so I can't comment on those issues.

Regarding ratings. You can turn up accuracy to very high or disable scouting altogether if you're unhappy with the current results. I assume you are using the default normal setting?

[r0nster]

I have found that the coach rating system DOES indeed work I have no problems with it. My only problem I had was when I converted from OOTP 16 to 17 then coaching had went from being good to being so-so. I fixed that manually. Hiring staff with good reputation by far does help with minor leagues for I have never seen the results I am getting now with my minors. Because of that I have been able to rebuild my minors from shambles to prospects in plenty.

[ThePretender]

Didn't you spam the same thing on a few other forums? I know I saw this on Reddit and somewhere else, word for word.

[NoOne]

Originally Posted by The_Knuckler

First and foremost, let me just say that I've been playing OOTP since some of the first iterations of the game. I've always been a huge fan. However, this is one of the most frustrating and difficult versions of OOTP. Allow me to explain.

The coach rating system seems to be pointless. I'll hire coaches with "Excellent" or "Good" ratings. I'll sign them to long contracts, because I figure they'll be good fits in my system. Some of these coaches have little to no experience, but some have an established track record. After one or two bad seasons, their ratings will drop significantly to "Average" or "Fair". What is the point of a rating system for coaches if it only measures past performances. A great coach doesn't suddenly become a poor coach because he's managing a team that's struggling or rebuilding. This is very frustrating.

The team chemistry aspect is a great concept that enhances the realism of this game, but seems to be poorly executed. My team will start performing poorly all of a sudden, and players complain that "another player is outspoken" and damaging morale. However, it does not indicate at all who may be the problem so you can deal with that specific player. Essentially, it's a guessing game as to who you need address on the team.

Player ratings seem to be meaningless. I have pitchers and batters with good (sometimes great) ratings and they still end up performing poorly fairly consistently. I figure I may as well turn off the rating system altogether and simply rely on statistics.

I have loved OOTP for a great amount of time, but there really seems to be no rhyme or reason with the latest iteration of the game. I can appreciate that the developers are trying to make this more complex and challenging. But when you make a game that seems like success comes by complete chance and luck, it really starts to lose its appeal.

Anyway, just wanted to express my thoughts. Hopefully someone in the know will see this and explain what it is that I might be missing.

About coaching: you are looking at reputation and attributing this to coaching ratings. the reputation has virtually nothing to do with their abilities. so many other factors influence the result of baseball games than a manager. therefore, it's very easy to win with poor coaching ratings and also lose with great coaching ratings.

we cannot see coach ratings... if you don't liek this, like me, just look in the editor at them. the coaching system is not required to play, either. it's small poh-tah-toes to the big picture.

chemistry: i think there's some confusion on causality. the team lost some games - very little of that had to do with chemistry... until you lost enough that players got pissy... they get upset sooner with worse personalities and how many of them are on your team. this is part of roster management and you can avoid this.... that's the 'realism' it adds. you made that bed, now you have to lie in it -- type thing. although, even then you can't blame all of the losing on chemistry with the naked eye. there are many other reasons teams lose.

the player performance thing is a perception problem. go look up even a hall of famer (cheater) like that big dumb animal named roger clemens. 1/4th of his years are sub-standard relative to what you think of as a typical Roger Clemens year. very very few players are consistent like hank aaron and hit roughly the same # of HR each year for 20-some years. it simply isn't normal.

i can guarantee any gm that runs a team on stats is far less successful as they would have been if they'd used the ratings (assuming normal accuracy). you get information that is not as clear, so it is objective fact and not an opinion.

this isn't about a lack or rhyme or reasone, but rather a ... well i'm going to link a family guy clip that i think sums it up well....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHpdgHTINik

except the game isn't a wrecked house, lol. it's as it should be, but it's just a bit different.

[PSUColonel]

This was sort of a first step toward improving staff and coaches. There is a lot I'd like to see included in OOTP that I am not sure will ever make it in, but I will discuss some of my ideas here, and mention them in BETA as well.

Reputation does not and should not equate to good coaching ability. Think of the manager who wins because he has the benefit of a massive payroll...then think of the winning manager who wins in spite of not having much of a payroll. (e.g. Joe Maddon with the Rays) I believe in a dynamic coaches system. I believe we have a taken a step towards this, but I see much more in the way of potential.

We need to find a way to bring coaches and players to life, while not making things to hokey, or gamey.

I like the idea of creating blurbs about coaches describing their philosophies, and history. These however should be dynamic, in that a manger will adjust his tendencies based on the type of talent on the roster, while other managers are more tactically rigid.

I'd like to see statistical breakdowns for each manager. Wins and losses just aren't enough. I feel the sliding bars for tendencies for showing tendency should be eliminated in favor of statistical breakdowns of what each manager is doing. How often he calls for the steal, how successful that is...what percentage of the time he calls for the hit & run, percentage of time he employs the shift etc... So what I am saying is, I'd like to see dynamic stats and written word replace "sliding bars" .

Another way of bring coaches and staff to life is to give every staff member the same sets of attributes no matter which position they may hold. This way certain staff can move through the ranks, or be placed in positions other than their primary one. So no more "Joe X is not interested in being a manger, so he doesn't have any attributes. To me, this is just a bit lazy looking, and not thorough. It seems this is almost just a way to limit the number of managers within the game. Just not very real or dynamic IMO. So theoretically, a Coach or manager could become a GM, and vice versa. It doesn't men they'd be good, but the possibility should be there. (and I'd like to see only former players be the only coaches and managers...this too is very dynamic...players should also state late in their career if they have interests in coaching...these would be players with high intelligence, leadership and motivation)

This now brings us to reputation....As I have said, I think all coaching and staff ratings should be "under the hood" and displayed only as "blurbs" and "stats"...although I feel the descriptions of coaches really needs to be greatly expanded, and the addition of statistical analysis will help. Reputation should be based on a hybrid of different factors. Obviously winning percentage, playoff appearances, and championships play a significant role in reputation, but there really needs to be more that's visible to us. This to me is obviously different form philosophy (as it is now) in that it's not so much about how you win, but rather the fact that you either do or do not. Now that of course begs the question: what goes into winning? It's easy to look at a win-loss record and say "hey, he wins"...but we need to delve into the reasons why certain players and coaches win, while others, do not. Success at the minor league level may be graded differently than success at the major league level, and this goes for both players AND coaches. To me, development of players is what measures a ton of the success at the minor league level. In fact, the lower you go in the minors the more development should be weighted. Each coach and staff member should be "tied" to certain players. If a player reaches a certain level of success in the MLB, the coaches that coached them at any level, should have some credit in helping to develop them. The amount of credit given to the coach should be based on the performance of the player, his scouting increases or decreases, and the amount of time (games/seasons) the coach was with the player. General Managers would have a list of key players they drafted, also a list of coaches they've hired. This combined with a team's winning percentage should all go into an equation which determines reputation. This way, the reputation may be served, or not so well deserved, it's just like real life.

I also feel most managers would want to bring a long their own staff, and during your "interview" process with managers, they should be providing a list of suggested assistants they would like you to hire. This will help those who feel hiring staff is too tedious (which I have never understood) and will better reflect reality. As a trade off, I'd like to see the coaching staff greatly expanded to a realistic number. Catching, bullpen, base coaches, strength and conditioning should all be included, and should also have some sort of effect on the team, even if it's not a huge one. This way, those who don't want to deal with hiring and firing won't have to. Things might work a little differently in the minors, or maybe not. Managers could still make suggestions about who to hire, or perhaps the assistant GM could also have a role in it. This is a way to make staff and personnel as detailed and realistic as you want. Basically you can simply instruct your assistant GM to go offer contract to whomever you decide you want on staff.


Well, this brainstorming session is done for now.. Perhaps more will come later. I will pass this along to the BETA team.

[BeanballComin]

I'll hire coaches with "Excellent" or "Good" ratings. I'll sign them to long contracts, because I figure they'll be good fits in my system. Some of these coaches have little to no experience, but some have an established track record. After one or two bad seasons, their ratings will drop significantly to "Average" or "Fair".

In my fictional league, I have found this to change daily, on a per game basis, mostly with my minor league clubs.

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

Didn't you spam the same thing on a few other forums? I know I saw this on Reddit and somewhere else, word for word.

If that's true that ain't cool because now it could discourage potential future costumers

[r0nster]

@ Padreman...... this game sells itself ..... 99.9% approval rating is nothing to laugh about Once the future customers get the hang of the game they will be hooked on the game and no other game will they ever want or will match up to this one.

[daves]

Originally Posted by edm

I dont pay attention to team chemistry. To be honest, I disable the personality and morale stuff, so I'm not even sure if team chemistry is on in my game. Same thing with coaching, I have it disabled, so I can't comment on those issues.

Regarding ratings. You can turn up accuracy to very high or disable scouting altogether if you're unhappy with the current results. I assume you are using the default normal setting?

I like these ideas. I tried an online league and they had too many features on for realism that does not appear to be there. Where do you disable these features?

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by r0nster

@ Padreman...... this game sells itself ..... 99.9% approval rating is nothing to laugh about Once the future customers get the hang of the game they will be hooked on the game and no other game will they ever want or will match up to this one.

That may be the case but I keep reading about players using 'house rules'. The program should be good enough not to require them.

Do you think the game needs them? Do you use any?

[Padreman]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

That may be the case but I keep reading about players using 'house rules'. The program should be good enough not to require them.

Do you think the game needs them? Do you use any?

I don't use them

[RchW]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

That may be the case but I keep reading about players using 'house rules'. The program should be good enough not to require them.

Do you think the game needs them? Do you use any?

Nonsense. Name me a constructed AI that you can't beat for $40? I'll buy it for $100. Maybe more.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by Padreman

I don't use them

Me either as the game AI is still smarter than I am. Every time my team doesn't win the world series is a win for the AI. It is ahead 36-7 so far.

[BigRed75]

Originally Posted by Up here in Canada

That may be the case but I keep reading about players using 'house rules'. The program should be good enough not to require them.

Do you think the game needs them? Do you use any?

Funny, I don't ever remember hearing about house rules until you brought it up in a thread you started. Now that thread's finally fallen off the front page, you're bringing it up again.

[Up here in Canada]

Originally Posted by BigRed75

Funny, I don't ever remember hearing about house rules until you brought it up in a thread you started. Now that thread's finally fallen off the front page, you're bringing it up again.

What's so funny about that?

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This was sort of a first step toward improving staff and coaches. There is a lot I'd like to see included in OOTP that I am not sure will ever make it in, but I will discuss some of my ideas here, and mention them in BETA as well.

Reputation does not and should not equate to good coaching ability. Think of the manager who wins because he has the benefit of a massive payroll...then think of the winning manager who wins in spite of not having much of a payroll. (e.g. Joe Maddon with the Rays) I believe in a dynamic coaches system. I believe we have a taken a step towards this, but I see much more in the way of potential.

We need to find a way to bring coaches and players to life, while not making things to hokey, or gamey.

I like the idea of creating blurbs about coaches describing their philosophies, and history. These however should be dynamic, in that a manger will adjust his tendencies based on the type of talent on the roster, while other managers are more tactically rigid.

I'd like to see statistical breakdowns for each manager. Wins and losses just aren't enough. I feel the sliding bars for tendencies for showing tendency should be eliminated in favor of statistical breakdowns of what each manager is doing. How often he calls for the steal, how successful that is...what percentage of the time he calls for the hit & run, percentage of time he employs the shift etc... So what I am saying is, I'd like to see dynamic stats and written word replace "sliding bars" .

Another way of bring coaches and staff to life is to give every staff member the same sets of attributes no matter which position they may hold. This way certain staff can move through the ranks, or be placed in positions other than their primary one. So no more "Joe X is not interested in being a manger, so he doesn't have any attributes. To me, this is just a bit lazy looking, and not thorough. It seems this is almost just a way to limit the number of managers within the game. Just not very real or dynamic IMO. So theoretically, a Coach or manager could become a GM, and vice versa. It doesn't men they'd be good, but the possibility should be there. (and I'd like to see only former players be the only coaches and managers...this too is very dynamic...players should also state late in their career if they have interests in coaching...these would be players with high intelligence, leadership and motivation)

This now brings us to reputation....As I have said, I think all coaching and staff ratings should be "under the hood" and displayed only as "blurbs" and "stats"...although I feel the descriptions of coaches really needs to be greatly expanded, and the addition of statistical analysis will help. Reputation should be based on a hybrid of different factors. Obviously winning percentage, playoff appearances, and championships play a significant role in reputation, but there really needs to be more that's visible to us. This to me is obviously different form philosophy (as it is now) in that it's not so much about how you win, but rather the fact that you either do or do not. Now that of course begs the question: what goes into winning? It's easy to look at a win-loss record and say "hey, he wins"...but we need to delve into the reasons why certain players and coaches win, while others, do not. Success at the minor league level may be graded differently than success at the major league level, and this goes for both players AND coaches. To me, development of players is what measures a ton of the success at the minor league level. In fact, the lower you go in the minors the more development should be weighted. Each coach and staff member should be "tied" to certain players. If a player reaches a certain level of success in the MLB, the coaches that coached them at any level, should have some credit in helping to develop them. The amount of credit given to the coach should be based on the performance of the player, his scouting increases or decreases, and the amount of time (games/seasons) the coach was with the player. General Managers would have a list of key players they drafted, also a list of coaches they've hired. This combined with a team's winning percentage should all go into an equation which determines reputation. This way, the reputation may be served, or not so well deserved, it's just like real life.

I also feel most managers would want to bring a long their own staff, and during your "interview" process with managers, they should be providing a list of suggested assistants they would like you to hire. This will help those who feel hiring staff is too tedious (which I have never understood) and will better reflect reality. As a trade off, I'd like to see the coaching staff greatly expanded to a realistic number. Catching, bullpen, base coaches, strength and conditioning should all be included, and should also have some sort of effect on the team, even if it's not a huge one. This way, those who don't want to deal with hiring and firing won't have to. Things might work a little differently in the minors, or maybe not. Managers could still make suggestions about who to hire, or perhaps the assistant GM could also have a role in it. This is a way to make staff and personnel as detailed and realistic as you want. Basically you can simply instruct your assistant GM to go offer contract to whomever you decide you want on staff.


Well, this brainstorming session is done for now.. Perhaps more will come later. I will pass this along to the BETA team.

Good stuff. Maybe BNN could do an annual "Top Coaches in the League" report for every league. As we all know BNN is not perfect but they do have a good research department.

[Honorable_Pawn]

Originally Posted by RchW

Nonsense. Name me a constructed AI that you can't beat for $40? I'll buy it for $100. Maybe more.

Oh, I'll go a lot higher than that.

I just dumped $89 into Hearts of Iron IV and that AI is a total meat puppet.

I got $500 for a video game that has good AI.