Ootp2007: Trade proposals - can we have the option...

[jm47048]

I don't mind a lot of options. These things tend to be set once and then you move on, kinda like moving states and dealing with the DMV. You have to put up with that once, and then you are good until you move states again. I guess my example is silly

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by battists

BruceM, I think the reason that some see value in adding options is that many people disagree with your position that "the very basics of the game of baseball don't work correctly."

That is, not that they would not disagree with empirical evidence. But, for many people, some of the things that don't work don't bother them enough to hurt their enjoyment of the game.

For example, when I play the game, I'm mildly irked by some baseball issues, mildly irked by some interface issues, and generally enjoy playing the game. I don't get stressed out enough by it to argue against more options being added, and if I'm feeling particularly aggravated, I go do something else for a time. But, that's just the kind of guy I am.

There are other people for whom certain problems are "game-killers," and they can't enjoy the game while those problems exist. Depending on the person, those may be interface problems OR "baseball" problems.

And we go back in a circle again, because it all comes down to individual preference.

Steve

Because something doesn't bother some people does not mean it works correctly.

Why do you classify it as being stressed out and, of all words, arguing?

Are you saying everytime someone has a different opinion on a topic they're 'arguing' against it? I don't see anyone arguing here, I see people giving good discussion and feedback both pro & con for adding another option. If that's arguing then one of us has a grave misunderstanding of the english language.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by battists

There are other people for whom certain problems are "game-killers," and they can't enjoy the game while those problems exist. Depending on the person, those may be interface problems OR "baseball" problems.

And we go back in a circle again, because it all comes down to individual preference.

And really, that's it.

I think both concerns are very legitimate, and you've done a good job explaining how the testing team tries to handle them.

I think we should all share our opinions on what would make the game better for us, and let the inevitible occur, which is that the development team will take care of prioritization. That was my reasoning for the statement on the holistic approach.

I just hate to see the relative merit of one idea or another be stomped on or made light of due to personal preference.

I guess I'd never go into a thread about a perceived problem and poo poo the problem listed. You can either fix the problem, if it isn't really a problem (and this certainly occurs - I've been helped many times here, and hopefully helped a few in the past as well), or pass it along for the dev team to consider.

But, once again, that's a matter of personal preference in communication and confrontation.

KUTGW, Steve. I'm looking forward to seeing the new iteration of the game.

[battists]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Because something doesn't bother some people does not mean it works correctly.

Of course! I'm merely pointing that the fact that it doesn't bother some people is the reason that those same people feel comfortable asking for additional options. Because they don't see the "broken piece" as a big issue (for them), they don't subscribe to the notion that options shouldn't be added until those things are fixed.

Why do you classify it as being stressed out and, of all words, arguing?

I think you're reading more into the words than I intended. For example, PSU's stated that "The problem is that I think might be unwise to continue introducing new elements to the game when there are so many other A.I. issues that clearly need fixing first." I would considering that "arguing against introducing new elements." I'm not saying PSU's being argumentative or negative. That's just one way of using the word "arguing." I could have just as easily used the phrase "making a case" or something similar.

I used "stressed out" because I often see people on the forums who appear genuinely angry or, well, stressed out that Game A, Game B, or Game C doesn't have Feature X, or that Feature Y is broken. My personality isn't like that, and I'm not saying others shouldn't be that way if that's their personality. I'm just saying, my personality is such that even if my game has a problem, I tend to go with the flow and not get all worked up about it. I felt like "stressed out" was a pretty good fit there. But, really, I'm just trying to point out how different people have different perceptions of problems.

Are you saying everytime someone has a different opinion on a topic they're 'arguing' against it? I don't see anyone arguing here, I see people giving good discussion and feedback both pro & con for adding another option. If that's arguing then one of us has a grave misunderstanding of the english language.

Well, yes, they are arguing for or against a certain option. No grave misunderstanding. Just different uses of the word:

transitive verb
1 : to give evidence of : INDICATE <the facts argue his innocence>
2 : to consider the pros and cons of : DISCUSS <argue an issue>
3 : to prove or try to prove by giving reasons : MAINTAIN <asking for a chance to argue his case>
4 : to persuade by giving reasons : INDUCE <couldn't argue her out of going>

I'm using #2.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by enuttage

I think you might be mistaking aesthetics for functionality.

Obviously, your issue is a very big one, but for those of us that aren't playing the game any longer due to interface/ease-of-use issues, there is just as much immediacy in our requests.

I fail to understand how we can't move forward holistically as a community and progress yearly with all of these concerns.

To marginalize someone else's concern as less important in order to front your own concern is less than noble, and certainly self-interested. That's fine, but I'm not sure it's constructive to the project at hand.

Because I have been playing OOTP 2006 for some time now, and really the i nterface isn't all that bad. It just takes some time to adjust to, but I am getting the feeling there are many here (and I don't know about you personally) who have not put the required time in, and just threw up their arms and proclaimed the interface and it's functionality to be "broken".

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by battists

Everyone has issues that they feel are more important than others. PSU obviously feels strongly about the waiver thing, but in the games I've played, I honestly haven't seen the AI behavior be as extreme as he is experiencing. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue. More likely it's just that he's a better manager than I am. But, it also means that it doesn't feel like an 800-pound gorilla to me when I think of things that I feel are wrong with the game.

There is simply no practical way to create an |absolute| ranking of the priority of certain issues, so the development and beta teams do the best we can by grouping them generally:

High priority - game killing things like crashes
Medium priority - uh, medium priority things
Low priority - things that don't have a tremendous impact, such as problems with very marginal features, cosmetic issues, and things that are broken but have a valid workaround

It's not a novel approach to prioritizing issues, but it does allow us to entertain both the ideas in this thread and the waiver wire issues simultaneously.

So, I guess, count me as supporting the notion of bringing up whatever issues and ideas you feel are important, and we'll do our best to prioritize and work on them. And in some cases, for reasons of resources, or design, Markus may just decide he is not able to do implement some of those ideas.

I check the waiver wire everyday (as most GM's should and do) and if you do it religiously every day during the course of a season, you will find that after about 2-3 months you will have a top 5 or 10 minors system. Not to mention I have what would be considered by starters on most any team as backups at certain positions. I am only using the "waiver thing" as you put it as an example. Whaat I am saying is that the AI overall in this game needs to be cranked up in order to make this game really worth playing in solo mode. This should really be the focus of design, not all these little "options". Sometimes i am getting the feeling the fan base of OOTP likes it simply because it provides options for every little things right down to what size the manager's penis is. I would think people would be more anxious to have a game that is extremely intelligent form an AI perspective, and is therefore very very challenging, and difficult. Isn't that what we are striving for here?, or am I on the wrong page here? If so, maybe it's I who is really looking at the game for something it's just not. I have often accused the many people who wanted historical options for this, and historical options for that of probably playing the wrong game. (other sims do this better) But now I am starting to think maybe I'm the one who's got it wrong as I continue to see the direction OOTP seems to be headed with many of the fringe players having such a loud voice in the development of 2007.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Because I have been playing OOTP 2006 for some time now, and really the i nterface isn't all that bad. It just takes some time to adjust to, but I am getting the feeling there are many here (and I don't know about you personally) who have not put the required time in, and just threw up their arms and proclaimed the interface and it's functionality to be "broken".

I think you're right. And to some degree, that's true for me, too. But...I have played many hours of the game, and I'm still not 'getting' it.

It's not just the interface, but that's a big part of it for me.

And really, if enough people are throwing up their arms, then it's a problem, regardless of whether we're impatient kids.

I don't want to have to 'work' to play a game. I'm too old and my time is too important to me for that.

I did have a 'hump' that I got over with the interface after a certain number of hours, but there's another one to go, and I can't get past it.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by enuttage

I think you're right. And to some degree, that's true for me, too. But...I have played many hours of the game, and I'm still not 'getting' it.

It's not just the interface, but that's a big part of it for me.

And really, if enough people are throwing up their arms, then it's a problem, regardless of whether we're impatient kids.

I don't want to have to 'work' to play a game. I'm too old and my time is too important to me for that.

I did have a 'hump' that I got over with the interface after a certain number of hours, but there's another one to go, and I can't get past it.

What is it? That's what the community is here for. BTW...some of the players I've been talking about picking up on waivers...well guess what my scouts all seem to have varying opinions on most of them. Some saying he's going to be a superstar, while others say the player won't be worth crap. I just noticed this myself, so perhaps I am not being patient enough either.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

What is it? That's what the community is here for. BTW...some of the players I've been talking about picking up on waivers...well guess what my scouts all seem to have varying opinions on most of them. Some saying he's going to be a superstar, while others say the player won't be worth crap. I just noticed this myself, so perhaps I am not being patient enough either.

I think my biggest frustration with this game hasn't been the game, but my lack of ability to find words to describe what I don't like about it. Much of it is very intangible.

It makes for a vicious cycle, because I don't like playing the game, but I need to play the game more to start to identify problems with it.

So I end up saying things like the game experience seems antiseptic, distant, non-immersive, non-intuitive, and tedious.

But those non-specific feelings are pretty worthless, because I can't really describe why.

However, I occasionally see a thread here that touches on some small reason for my frustration. That's why I ended up in this thread. But it's also why I'm not around much. I can't help much if I can't express my problems.

[PSUColonel]

What "hump" can you not get over?

[battists]

Originally Posted by enuttage

I did have a 'hump' that I got over with the interface after a certain number of hours, but there's another one to go, and I can't get past it.

You know, I could fix that hump for you . . .

:shifty:

[PSUColonel]

I remember one hump back in college that I'll never get over, but that was a long time ago.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

What "hump" can you not get over?

Dunno. That's the problem. I just don't enjoy the game. I really wish I knew why so I could be more helpful.

[battists]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I check the waiver wire everyday (as most GM's should and do) and if you do it religiously every day during the course of a season, you will find that after about 2-3 months you will have a top 5 or 10 minors system. Not to mention I have what would be considered by starters on most any team as backups at certain positions. I am only using the "waiver thing" as you put it as an example. Whaat I am saying is that the AI overall in this game needs to be cranked up in order to make this game really worth playing in solo mode. This should really be the focus of design, not all these little "options". Sometimes i am getting the feeling the fan base of OOTP likes it simply because it provides options for every little things right down to what size the manager's penis is. I would think people would be more anxious to have a game that is extremely intelligent form an AI perspective, and is therefore very very challenging, and difficult. Isn't that what we are striving for here?, or am I on the wrong page here? If so, maybe it's I who is really looking at the game for something it's just not. I have often accused the many people who wanted historical options for this, and historical options for that of probably playing the wrong game. (other sims do this better) But now I am starting to think maybe I'm the one who's got it wrong as I continue to see the direction OOTP seems to be headed with many of the fringe players having such a loud voice in the development of 2007.

PSU,

I think, FWIW, that while OOTP isn't going to try to be ALL things to all people, it's at least going to try to be pretty enjoyable things to a lot of different people. One can certainly argue that 2006 fell short in that regard.

I think that the issue you're running into is that you're expecting the game to be X, and you're disappointed when others suggest options A, B, and C when X isn't working perfectly. There are several difficulties that are caused by this:

a. X isn't necessarily Markus' view of the game
b. X isn't necessarily other players' view of the game

I'll keep using the waivers example. I like to play solo, but I don't watch the waiver wire very closely, mainly because the game isn't really all about winning the championship for me. I like watching players develop, playing out games, making up stories about it, and so forth. I don't really micromanage my team too much. I'm not sure if this makes me a bad GM, but I guess my point here is that you have a very distinct perspective on the game that you're projecting onto other users ("most GMs should check the waiver wire every day"). The truth is, that thing you stated as an absolute is only relevant if the player has the same goals as you do. It seems like your goal as a solo player is to win the championship every year. Which is fine, and I'd imagine many solo players share that goal. But, the glorious thing about OOTP in every version so far is that it supports your goal as well as mine.

The game is "worth playing" to me in solo mode, even if you can exploit the AI in some, or even many cases.

I kick myself for getting into these discussions, but again, the point is not that you're "wrong" for feeling the way that you do. But I do think it wouldn't be reasonable for people to expect OOTP to conform to one person's perspective, and that's often what causes these discussions. To wit, when one person feels that "the core" of the game should be X (for example, accurate simulation of Major League Baseball), then we invariably end up in a discussion similar to this one, because there are plenty of players who just don't agree that this should be the core of the game.

The fact that so many options exist in OOTP today is proof that the community is demanding them. The variability in interests in the baseball simming community drives the demand for options.

Just my 2 cents for now.

Steve

[PSUColonel]

I think you are right in what you are saying, but what I am saying is I think OOTP needs to pick a direction, and go in that direction. Again, trying to be all things to all people will (in my opinion) ultimately result in the game doing a whole lot of things half-assed.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by battists

You know, I could fix that hump for you . . .

:shifty:

I'm all ears, Steve!

Half-serious. My ears ARE pretty big. Get it from my grandfather.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by battists

I think that the issue you're running into is that you're expecting the game to be X, and you're disappointed when others suggest options A, B, and C when X isn't working perfectly. There are several difficulties that are caused by this:

a. X isn't necessarily Markus' view of the game
b. X isn't necessarily other players' view of the game

I don't think that's very accurate.

What PSU and a lot of others, myself included, are asking for is realism.

Having an AI that dumps great prospects on waivers rather than trade them isn't realistic.

Having a trade option that gives an instant reply to your offer also isn't realistic.

How you play the game is up to you, but when the core fundamentals of the game of baseball aren't working right, then those are the things that should have a high priority on the fix it/add it list over things that would be nice because "insert user name here" likes to play his/her game this way.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by BruceM

I don't think that's very accurate.

What PSU and a lot of others, myself included, are asking for is realism.

Having an AI that dumps great prospects on waivers rather than trade them isn't realistic.

Having a trade option that gives an instant reply to your offer also isn't realistic.

How you play the game is up to you, but when the core fundamentals of the game of baseball aren't working right, then those are the things that should have a high priority on the fix it/add it list over things that would be nice because "insert user name here" likes to play his/her game this way.

They probably do. And if you haven't already started threads on those things, you should do so. It would/could be helpful.

[battists]

Originally Posted by enuttage

They probably do. And if you haven't already started threads on those things, you should do so. It would/could be helpful.

I agree. The AI waiver thingy is definitely being looked very closely now.

But, the trade timing is one area that may end up an option. Despite the new model being more "realistic," there are a large number of people who feel it's "too realistic," in the sense that they feel it adds an administrative and unenjoyable part of baseball into the game.

*shrugs*

Regardless, those of you (like me) who enjoy the drawn out negotiation, rest assured it won't go away!

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by battists

PSU,

I think, FWIW, that while OOTP isn't going to try to be ALL things to all people, it's at least going to try to be pretty enjoyable things to a lot of different people. One can certainly argue that 2006 fell short in that regard.

I think that the issue you're running into is that you're expecting the game to be X, and you're disappointed when others suggest options A, B, and C when X isn't working perfectly. There are several difficulties that are caused by this:

a. X isn't necessarily Markus' view of the game
b. X isn't necessarily other players' view of the game

I'll keep using the waivers example. I like to play solo, but I don't watch the waiver wire very closely, mainly because the game isn't really all about winning the championship for me. I like watching players develop, playing out games, making up stories about it, and so forth. I don't really micromanage my team too much. I'm not sure if this makes me a bad GM, but I guess my point here is that you have a very distinct perspective on the game that you're projecting onto other users ("most GMs should check the waiver wire every day"). The truth is, that thing you stated as an absolute is only relevant if the player has the same goals as you do. It seems like your goal as a solo player is to win the championship every year. Which is fine, and I'd imagine many solo players share that goal. But, the glorious thing about OOTP in every version so far is that it supports your goal as well as mine.

The game is "worth playing" to me in solo mode, even if you can exploit the AI in some, or even many cases.

I kick myself for getting into these discussions, but again, the point is not that you're "wrong" for feeling the way that you do. But I do think it wouldn't be reasonable for people to expect OOTP to conform to one person's perspective, and that's often what causes these discussions. To wit, when one person feels that "the core" of the game should be X (for example, accurate simulation of Major League Baseball), then we invariably end up in a discussion similar to this one, because there are plenty of players who just don't agree that this should be the core of the game.

The fact that so many options exist in OOTP today is proof that the community is demanding them. The variability in interests in the baseball simming community drives the demand for options.

Just my 2 cents for now.

Steve

This is very well stated battists. I honestly havent really thought about the game in this light. I started out playing SOMBB and diamondmind and came over to OOTP with the release of OOTP6 and 6.5. I was thinking when I first played it "Wow this game is great, I can't wait til next years version when these AI errors get ironed out, this will be the game I have looked for since I started playing computer text games" I was so excited for the release last year, I suppose it was destined to be a let down. It seems the more realstic the game is trying to become the more AL errors we are finding. Like you stated above, maybe if I approach the game a different way I would like it a lot more. I came into OOTP06 looking for a perfect game I do believe(especially with all the hype). I am certain after thinking about it, if I had came directly from SOMBB or DMBB to OOTP06 I would probably love the game.