The 255 bug bites again! - Page 4

Cras · 06-01-2006, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

dont forget the RPG world (Oblivian anyone?)

A real RPG fan would know it is spelled Oblivion!

Sorry. That game rocks btw.

Le Grande Orange · 06-01-2006, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarmenia

I agree that there are other issues (See the hideous open file dialog box) but that doesn't mean this is not an issue like you are saying.

I'm just saying I don't think this qualifies as a bug or mistake. It was a design choice, and it's one that doesn't particularly bother me. Someone else can be bothered by it naturally but it was a design choice at the end of the day.

As I said, one could always try to lobby Markus to have that choice revisited. Not sure how possible it is to change for a future version, but perhaps it's possible.

canadiancreed · 06-01-2006, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cras

A real RPG fan would know it is spelled Oblivion!

Sorry. That game rocks btw.

Dont' be. Never played it, probably wont either. Doesnt' really intrest me that much

Qrusher14242 · 06-01-2006, 09:52 PM

I just thought it was bad of him to say he this bug was going to be fixed and then changing his mind without doing a poll or anything and write it off as a design choice.

gmo · 06-01-2006, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RMc

I also tried a season of more than 255 games, starting February 1st. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but the game won't allow a season to begin that early, and it insists on playing an exhibition schedule. (Can't these meaningless games be turned off or something?) The season started April 1st, and ran through December 31st, for a total of...exactly 255 games. Uh-huh.

The game will not allow a schedule to begin before March so that it can allow for its full preseason which can be up to a 2-month period. You can turn off spring training under the options tab in League setup at the time of creating the league and I believe also during the offseason.

nestajones · 06-01-2006, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Maybe. But to me only 75% of the way there in all of major league history strikes me as being just far enough away to warrant considering the limitation.

I really think you're going out of your way to defend the game. Is 75% of the way there close or not? Well, I guess it depends on your perspective. But since when does OOTP necessarily have to fit real-world major league baseball guidelines? Didn't the old PCL play like 200 game seasons? LGO, as the schedule king of these boards, you of all people should acknowlege this. In a 200 game season, in an offensive climate, with the stars aligned...couldn't someone challenge 256 rbi? Absolutely. That's not some loony league, that could be a historical league run by a serious player.

And your argument that a lot of people complain league totals don't come close enough to reality, so the number of people who are running leagues with "funny" totals are minimal, is silly. People who are running such leagues obviously aren't going to complain about league totals because they realize their leagues aren't based in reality and they are just having fun and experimenting. I don't run leagues like that myself but I won't assume such people are hard to find. I don't know that OOTP needs to support leagues scoring 100 RPG, but I'm sure you've read about people trying to replicate little league or something, with 10 RPG.

I am kind of bothered by your going out of your way to defend these database limitations. I also recall Markus or someone saying that these limitations would not exist in the new game. I have no idea when, as I don't always read the boards regularly, but I'm sure I saw it, and I'm not the only one. I doubt anyone would complain about (or ever notice) a 255 limit on SF, IBB, GIDP, **** like that. But for RBI, with this "complete rebuild" of the database, I find it absurd.

jff1515155 · 06-01-2006, 10:01 PM

I, for one don't undersand why the limitation is still there. With all the expansion already set, delivering something we were promised should have been a priority. And not letting us know pre release that it wasn't implemented is very unfortunate. I purchased level ootp3 thru 6.51 and i was really looking forward to ootpbb 2006. For me this was a MAJOR issue as I like to do both historical (accurate solo) leagues and leagues in which a Joe Hardy or a Roy Hobbs appears and carries an underdog to glory. I know there are those who feel that its no big deal, but please remember other sims current and older had no such limitations ie high heat, mogul, pure sim baseball. And i sincerely believe MANY solo players will be greatly dissapointed. As has been said before by many I am no progremmer, so I dont understand the build issues but I am a customer and as such I hope this will be addressed.

canadiancreed · 06-01-2006, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

I just thought it was bad of him to say he this bug was going to be fixed and then changing his mind without doing a poll or anything and write it off as a design choice.

IN his defense if there was a poll for each feature or what not, we'd probably still be on OOTP2 or so.

Le Grande Orange · 06-01-2006, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

I just thought it was bad of him to say he this bug was going to be fixed and then changing his mind without doing a poll or anything and write it off as a design choice.

It wasn't a bug. Sorry, I'm just being anal about definitions today, particularly given all the real bugs being posted about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nestajones

I really think you're going out of your way to defend the game... I am kind of bothered by your going out of your way to defend these database limitations.

Whatever. I'm just explaining why it is the way it is. Feel free to categorize explanation any way you like.

You see, I stopped long ago getting all wrapped up and bothered by a computer game not having this feature than I wanted, or not doing that because because of the scope of the game, or what have you. I just take 'em as I find 'em and don't get particularly bothered by them one way or the other. It's just a game at the end of the day so I'm not going to put too much emotion into worrying about bugs or design choices or features or whatever.

Of course, I also don't rush out and buy a game within days of its release either. I always wait at least several weeks, if not a month or two, for things to sort themselves out, for reviews to come in, and to browse forums to see what the folks playing it actually think. The side benefit of this system is that if you wait long enough the game hits the bargain bin and you save some cash.

Anyway, given all this, it is very hard for me to relate to anybody who seems to get rather up-in-arms because of this or that item in a game. I just can't get that concerned over a piece of entertainment software. If it looks like a good deal, I'll but it; if it doesn't, I won't. It really is that simple for me.

Le Grande Orange · 06-01-2006, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jff1515155

I, for one don't undersand why the limitation is still there.

Asked and answered: it was done for some categories in order to help keep league file sizes manageable.

You may not agree with that choice, but that's why it was done.

Qrusher14242 · 06-01-2006, 10:40 PM

Well it is a bug. Nowhere in the game does it say 255 is the limit for runs and rbi's. All of a sudden, it resets to 0. Maybe they should put a disclaimer saying we have to have leagues that have stats that resemble the MLB.

canadiancreed · 06-01-2006, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

Well it is a bug. Nowhere in the game does it say 255 is the limit for runs and rbi's. All of a sudden, it resets to 0. Maybe they should put a disclaimer saying we have to have leagues that have stats that resemble the MLB.

umm....jsut curious....but aren't bugs features or tasks in software that should do one thing, and instead perform another?

Qrusher14242 · 06-01-2006, 10:52 PM

Well if it is meant to reset to 0, they should include it in the manual or in game. Maybe a warning saying your guy is near 255 and to bench or DL him. It does seem like an artificial barrier. OOTP has usually been a game known for its options and customizability.

canadiancreed · 06-01-2006, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

Well if it is meant to reset to 0, they should include it in the manual or in game. Maybe a warning saying your guy is near 255 and to bench or DL him. It does seem like an artificial barrier. OOTP has usually been a game known for its options and customizability.

then again the artifical barrier that is mentioned is found in bascially every game made in the last decade or so, or at least as long as WIndows based software has been around (well ok, maybe not pre Windows95, but I digress).

It's a limitation of the programming language that if the container for said values was increased, the size of the game in both file and resources would also increase. Basically either way, he wasnt' goign to please someone, so hence he went with the smaller crowd (not an actual quote or anything, just a logical assumption).

Le Grande Orange · 06-01-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Qrusher14242

Well if it is meant to reset to 0, they should include it in the manual or in game. Maybe a warning saying your guy is near 255 and to bench or DL him. It does seem like an artificial barrier. OOTP has usually been a game known for its options and customizability.

It probably would be a good idea to mention in the Customization Guide that those running leagues with offences set to be significantly higher than those of real-world leagues may run into this issue.

battists · 06-01-2006, 11:11 PM

At this point, unfortunately, this probably can't be addressed in this version, but I'll definitely log it as an issue to look at once again.

It would an interesting point if Markus could provide some kind of data around this the next time he looks at it. For example, "if we change RBI to the next data type up, a MAL standard league will take this long to sim, and the league files would be this size after 5 years."

Or some such.

Killing Time · 06-02-2006, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It is not a bug, it is a thoughtless design limitation.

Fixed that for ya.

onthepunt · 06-02-2006, 12:57 AM

Yes it does seem pretty insane to have an RBI cap especially when lots of people play fictional dynastys with stats different to RL.

Le Grande Orange · 06-02-2006, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Killing Time

Fixed that for ya.

In your opinion, naturally. I'm sure there are just as many folks who aren't particularly concerned. It's hardly the end of the world, all things considered.

dodgecharger1968 · 06-02-2006, 04:37 AM

Two things to put on this. One, what percentage is the old HR record of 61 when compared to the new record? Something like 75%? Did that seem realistic in 1992?

Also, I had a guy that was completely computer generated with completely standard league settings who wrapped RBIs around. It really sucked. It cost him a ninth consecutive MVP when he checked in with 102 HR, .378, and 22 RBI. Granted, that's because all the talent in the whole league was in my organization, so the opposing pitching was weak and the lineup was strong, but it still was a very standard setup.

06-01-2006, 09:52 PM	#64
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,253	I just thought it was bad of him to say he this bug was going to be fixed and then changing his mind without doing a poll or anything and write it off as a design choice.

06-01-2006, 10:01 PM	#67
jff1515155 Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 42	I, for one don't undersand why the limitation is still there. With all the expansion already set, delivering something we were promised should have been a priority. And not letting us know pre release that it wasn't implemented is very unfortunate. I purchased level ootp3 thru 6.51 and i was really looking forward to ootpbb 2006. For me this was a MAJOR issue as I like to do both historical (accurate solo) leagues and leagues in which a Joe Hardy or a Roy Hobbs appears and carries an underdog to glory. I know there are those who feel that its no big deal, but please remember other sims current and older had no such limitations ie high heat, mogul, pure sim baseball. And i sincerely believe MANY solo players will be greatly dissapointed. As has been said before by many I am no progremmer, so I dont understand the build issues but I am a customer and as such I hope this will be addressed.

06-01-2006, 10:40 PM	#71
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,253	Well it is a bug. Nowhere in the game does it say 255 is the limit for runs and rbi's. All of a sudden, it resets to 0. Maybe they should put a disclaimer saying we have to have leagues that have stats that resemble the MLB.

06-01-2006, 10:52 PM	#73
Qrusher14242 All Star Starter Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: CA Posts: 1,253	Well if it is meant to reset to 0, they should include it in the manual or in game. Maybe a warning saying your guy is near 255 and to bench or DL him. It does seem like an artificial barrier. OOTP has usually been a game known for its options and customizability.

06-01-2006, 11:11 PM	#76
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	At this point, unfortunately, this probably can't be addressed in this version, but I'll definitely log it as an issue to look at once again. It would an interesting point if Markus could provide some kind of data around this the next time he looks at it. For example, "if we change RBI to the next data type up, a MAL standard league will take this long to sim, and the league files would be this size after 5 years." Or some such.

06-02-2006, 12:57 AM	#78
onthepunt Minors (Double A) Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 139	Yes it does seem pretty insane to have an RBI cap especially when lots of people play fictional dynastys with stats different to RL.

06-02-2006, 04:37 AM	#80
dodgecharger1968 Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 223	Two things to put on this. One, what percentage is the old HR record of 61 when compared to the new record? Something like 75%? Did that seem realistic in 1992? Also, I had a guy that was completely computer generated with completely standard league settings who wrapped RBIs around. It really sucked. It cost him a ninth consecutive MVP when he checked in with 102 HR, .378, and 22 RBI. Granted, that's because all the talent in the whole league was in my organization, so the opposing pitching was weak and the lineup was strong, but it still was a very standard setup.