Version 2007 : Community Concerns for Focus

[Prodigal Son]

FPS BBPro combined a graphics engine with a robust sim engine, and I really enjoyed watching my teams play out their games.

As for what I want to see in the new version, a skills-based defensive system.

[Curtis]

What am I missing? sebastion's system seems to be the one in 2006, except that Markus broke 'arm' into infield and outfield and added the 'quick release' (double play) rating from the second post. So, your wish has already been granted.

[darkcloud4579]

I for one do not like the 2-D thing in FM/WWSM. And I own the game. It does nothing for me at all and it would be a huge waste of effort to do that in OOTP07.

[Sweed]

[QUOTE=endgame;2001570]
In an earlier post, Sweed responded to someone that "we should wait to see what the next version looks like before writing off the game." I am a firm believer that we have historically been too complacent and we "wait and see," or rather "wait and then complain" rather than take an active and vocal role during the evaluation's process.

Originally Posted by dashby

For this to not be interpreted as cynicism will be a miracle but, since this is a forum full of subjective folks with subjective opinions I'll go. It was really Twelvefield's post that inspired me:

It is my opinion OOTP 2006 was the last uncharted waters Markus's professional abilities would allow him to sail (I really mean it when I say no offense). He ambitiously embarked on a rebuild of a text-based computer game and created another text-based computer game. Albeit, one much fatter, busier, and, yes, buggier. I liked the look and aestethic appeal of 2006 but, the playability did not favorably compare to previous less involved versions.

Once again, in my opinion, (and it's prob been said before) 2006 was a giant step forward in some ways but, a disappointing step backward in others (reality of simulation). So, my point, I suppose is all OOTP 2007 could possibly be is a clean up of unaddressed issues in the last version.

The only way for the OOTP line to evolve is through the effective use of neo-gaming graphics and audio. I do not believe Markus wants to take this on by himself (it would require a team of specialists in their relevant fields). With that said, IMHO, the OOTP has run its course. Don't shamelessly keep adding a few fixes and token novelties every year, just to suck another versions worth of bucks out of us gullible customers. Let it die.

For clarity my "wait and see" response was to this post by dashby that said IHO OOTP has run its course and should be allowed to die.

I am all for people making suggestions on what they'd like to see in the game. However I believe Battists hand delivered a huge list of suggestions to Markus. IMHO it's time now to let Markus look over that list and add what he thinks the game needs along with anything he had personally planned on.

Until we have an idea of what those things are, as BruceM said, it's kind of hard to evaluate.

[ifspuds]

I guess the way I see this thread is that endgame's isn't interested in collecting suggestions for the new game. As several people have said, that's already been done. What I think might be of more use right now is what the community would like the testers to focus on in the testing process. More of a 'how well does feature X work' and so on.

If that's truly what endgame wanted to be discussing here, I think that all I'd ask is that ease of play is a serious consideration. I'm an OOTP veteran of sorts (started with v4), but it's still only recently that I've managed to get all the way through starting a league. The quickstarts and templates are a terrific start on the process of making it easy for people to get into prebuilt leagues, but there's just so much available to people (like myself) wanting to start custom leagues that it can be incredibly overwhelming. The ability to have some of the options preset (historical era settings for example -- I want deadball stats, I'd like to be able to push a single button and have creation modifiers, era stats and modifiers set automatically, but also have the option to tinker with them myself) would be huge. 2006 is daunting. How's 2007 from that standpoint?

[Curtis]

That's a good one. I'd like to be able to play deadball, or the pitchers' era of the 1960s, or be able to easily begin a league in 1871 without clumsy and difficult to comprehend workarounds. Ease of setup and a fascile interface should receive attention from the beta testers.

[jdew]

Originally Posted by endgame

... let me rephrase my original post: What is it you want to make sure these guys look at and look at hard before this game nears release? ... It's not a suggestion thread, it's a Forget-Me-Not thread.

OK

FWIW......


Technically, beta-testing is not design; its the mundane, repetitive task of finding out if the software actually operates as its designed to operate. The design may be superb and complete or faulty and incomplete... that's of no concern. The tester only seeks to prove or disprove the action (operation) of the software to the design (intent) of the software. So on that level...

"Forget-Me-Not" #1

- Test that all designed commands, functions and options (new and previously existing) operate 100% as designed. Specifically....

1. That all OOTP functions operate 100% as designed.
(e.g. pressing "1" is supposed to cause a particular action; press "1" and that action occurs as its designed to occur.... pressing "1" is supposed to cause a particular action sometimes, at random intervals; press "1" and that action occurs at random intervals or only sometimes.)

2. That combinations of OOTP options operate as designed.
(e.g. selecting various options in league setup have the designed effect.)

3. That new functions, commands or operations do not break existing functions etc.

4. That OOTP2007 runs properly on multiple configurations.... XP, 2000, even Windows/98 and Vista... If SI says it runs on Windows/98 or XP or Mac or Linux or whatever, make sure it does in some fashion fully function.

(Understand that there may not be 100% success for 100% of the above items 100% of the time since it is doubtful that beta-testers have design documents to reference and a formal test plan in place in order to determine whether or not a function, command or option actually does what its designed to do. And, obviously, not every configuration can be replicated.Nevertheless, the above items should be a major focus area and so catch whatever can be caught even without knowledge or reference to the complete design (intent) of the software and all its functions, options and interactions.)

"Forget-Me-Not" #2

- Test that previously reported and discussed problems/glitches/"needs to be re-designed or improved" areas are addressed and, as best as can be in the allotted time, fixed or improved to the designed specification. There should be some sort of list of what was addressed available to the beta-testers. If not, then SI should provide one so that testers can focus on these items and not have to discover them (having to discover them means some will be missed). Any previously reported problem/"needs to be improved" item that's on this list should be tested to insure it actually fixes the problem or improves what it was supposed to improve... and not cause an ancillary new problem or "needs to be improved".


That would pretty much be the complete job if a software production model which includes a formal design review and sign-off by the end-user were followed, followed by formal test-plans, etc. For obvious and perfectly good and valid reasons, that's not the case so there's another level.


"Forget-Me-Not" #3

- Test that the major areas of user functionality (simming vs playing each game, fictional vs historical leagues) operate as the user would reasonably expect and as designed for that area. (for example, will the gamer who sims a month at a time in a historical league have a reasonable league and experience, aligned with reasonable expectations.... will the online fictional league ... will the player who plays each game out in a fictional league?) This is where the individual preferences of the beta-testers come into play. Those beta testers primarily interested in historical leagues should test that, those primarily interested in fictional leagues, test that... etc. If something essential is lacking there should exist a mechanism to report what is lacking, suggest a fix or addition. Naturally, not all those suggestions would make it into the release, but getting it "in the system for review and possible future action" is the first step.


"Forget-Me-Not" #4

- Test that current baseball rules and operating procedures as practiced by MLB are followed as completely and accurately as the current design allows. (Obviously not all league operating rules and procedures can be followed or mimiced 100% - or even would want to be) But as far as OOTP goes, do they operate to create at least some level of simulation of the operation of MLB. Again the individual knowledge of the beta-testers can come into play to test what's available and see if it makes sense. Again, a mechanism to report what is lacking or not altogether correct would get those items that cannot make the initial release into a queue for review.


"Forget-Me-Not #5"

- If there are new features, options, customization activities etc that require some new knowledge or procedures in order to use effectively (or at all), try to gain enough of that knowledge in order to guide the general user population. That way general users don't have to go on a possibly time-consuming "voyage of discovery" to carry out at least the basics of something brand new.


Well, there you go.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by jdew

OK

FWIW......

I'd swear that you are an alias for battists.

[toxicavenger74]

Originally Posted by Zitofan75

Why?

Who cares if it's more or less marketable? Markus could make it more marketable by making it a RTS style game. He could make it more marketable by removing VORP and other newfangled statistical measures (and for the record I like VORP but some old timers moan). He's making the game he wants to make. Maybe it's what you want and maybe it's not.

Games (or anything really) that promise to be all things to all people often are junk. They become muddled projects that fail to satisfy anyone. If I want the hard core 3D engine there are games for me out there to give me that. I played High Heat. It was junk for stats and other things but looked beautiful. I watched barry Bonds hit 89 HR's one season and so I traded a middle reliever for him! Ridiculous right? Sure, I knew it but I didn't care because it was fun to look at.

I don't play OOTP for that but for far better stats, trades, and baseball management devices. Don't want to get into GMing? You may not have the right game.

I don't really think you are reading all of my posts correctly because my underlying point in the end agrees with yours. However, this is a game that is for sale and so marketability does play into it otherwise it will go away. Re read the post where I stated that "These things are not OOTP..."

Anyway, that specific statement that you quoted was inspired by those who have complained about the complexity and setup time. Those where 2006 may miss their "Sweet Spot". The game really can't afford to lose these players. So, Markus does need to find a balance between those players and the hardcore players. This is marketability....now those from both camps will have a higher percentage of playing and purchasing the game because it fulfills the balance they are either trying to strike with their OOTP playing needs and their real life or it fulfills their level of need of GMing.

With regards to graphics and all of that I would agree if that's want you want then please go somewhere else because this is not OOTP, so I don't know why you are arguing with me on this. I can only assume you took my statements out of context.

[toxicavenger74]

Originally Posted by Zitofan75

Why?

Who cares if it's more or less marketable? Markus could make it more marketable by making it a RTS style game. He could make it more marketable by removing VORP and other newfangled statistical measures (and for the record I like VORP but some old timers moan). He's making the game he wants to make. Maybe it's what you want and maybe it's not.

Games (or anything really) that promise to be all things to all people often are junk. They become muddled projects that fail to satisfy anyone. If I want the hard core 3D engine there are games for me out there to give me that. I played High Heat. It was junk for stats and other things but looked beautiful. I watched barry Bonds hit 89 HR's one season and so I traded a middle reliever for him! Ridiculous right? Sure, I knew it but I didn't care because it was fun to look at.

I don't play OOTP for that but for far better stats, trades, and baseball management devices. Don't want to get into GMing? You may not have the right game.

Additionally, my statement was with the assumption that the game would not decrease in complexity but would have a level of simplicity.

[Prodigal Son]

Originally Posted by Curtis

What am I missing? sebastion's system seems to be the one in 2006, except that Markus broke 'arm' into infield and outfield and added the 'quick release' (double play) rating from the second post. So, your wish has already been granted.

It still doesn't feel like a skills-based system. Naming it "error prevention" instead of Fld % doesn't make it a skill. It's still an explicit calculation. I'd like for there to be more decision-making when it comes to figuring out what players can excel at what positions.

I really like the idea in the other thread of having range, hands, arm (could be split between IF and OF, but probably not necessary) and experience (seperate for each position, and preferably visible--no reason to hide it like it is now). There could perhaps be a "reaction" rating too. That adds so much strategy. While you may know your guy with a 4 range, 8 arm and 9 reaction should make a good third baseman, can he hack it at 2nd; can his excellent reactions and good arm make up for his below-average range if you get him enough experience at 2B? How close are your scouts to being sure he has those ratings? Should you play him at 2nd a little in the minors to see how he handles it? But that cuts into how quickly he gains experience at 3B, which will slow his development there! Sounds like a real-life dilemma.

The fielding is too overt right now; it's too cut-and-dried, and that's not the way it is in real baseball. In real baseball, prospects are extremely disproportionately shortstops and centerfielders coming out of high school and college. Scouts identify their range, hands, arm and reaction time and then try to figure out where they should fit in. The time in the minors serves as more than development time--it serves as evaluation time, as scouts figure out if a player is cutting it an any given position.

The 2006 system was a big step in the right direction, but I think the fielding system has the potential to be simpler, more intuitive and more realistic.

[Zitofan75]

Originally Posted by toxicavenger74

I don't really think you are reading all of my posts correctly because my underlying point in the end agrees with yours. However, this is a game that is for sale and so marketability does play into it otherwise it will go away. Re read the post where I stated that "These things are not OOTP..."

Anyway, that specific statement that you quoted was inspired by those who have complained about the complexity and setup time. Those where 2006 may miss their "Sweet Spot". The game really can't afford to lose these players. So, Markus does need to find a balance between those players and the hardcore players. This is marketability....now those from both camps will have a higher percentage of playing and purchasing the game because it fulfills the balance they are either trying to strike with their OOTP playing needs and their real life or it fulfills their level of need of GMing.

With regards to graphics and all of that I would agree if that's want you want then please go somewhere else because this is not OOTP, so I don't know why you are arguing with me on this. I can only assume you took my statements out of context.

It's quite possible I took you out of context. Plus I'd just gotten home from work and hadn't eaten dinner yet so I was probably tired. Some of my comments were aso based on having read the entire series of posts in this thread and I had them all in my mind so it wasn't entirely directed at you. My bad.

[RJB7777777]

I just wish you Guy's could take OOTP 6.5a and add the Rookie A League, Play-Offs, and a World Series for the Minors. That to me would be great.

My Son and I run a On-Line League and we bought OOTP2006 when it first could be bought and we tried it. We tranferred everything from 6.5a to 2006 and ran the first 30 Days of the new Season and our GM's hated it. So we went back to 6.5a.

I just wish we could go back to 6.5a and put the changes from above into it and that would be a great Game. I'd pay 30 Bucks or more if Marcus and Marc could do that.

Just my thoughts and a lot of other Guy's that run On-Line Leagues.

Thanks, Rick (RJB7777777)

[Go Middies]

I keep trying to play 2006 and just can't bring myself to enjoy it. It seems that if a player goes 0 for 4 one day and maybe 1 for 4 the next, he's in a cold slump and has serious ratings decreases. Make it like EHM: stats are nice but it's the coaching that improves/declines the players.

I hate to keep bringing it up but EHM is light years ahead of OOTP at this point so far as AI goes and gameplay 'value'.

[Joe Canadian]

It's a good thing I rarely come out of OT these days... I'd get awfully annoyed and frustrated if I had to read these comments about 2D & 3D game engines, when there a many other things that matter so much more that need fixing or implementation in the game first...

... anyways, back to OT I go...

[MadMax58]

While the debate of graphics or no graphics is a good discussion...I'll try to stick to the original point of the thread. But I'd just like to point out one thing first...to say Markus is not a competent/skilled enough developer to implement graphics is like saying Pujols isnt skilled enough to bunt. Sure he could...the question is whether he should.

As BruceM said...it is difficult to evaluate what Beta testers should look for without a feature set...but here are a few items I'd like to see tested, which I think might be on the feature set.
1) Automated expansion of historical teams/divisional alignments. This coupled with an expansion draft would be nice additions, which I'd like to see fully fleshed out if implemented.
2) I'd like to see the UI interrogated. More responsive dropdowns...simplified navigation...ability to CTRL+click(or mass highlight in some way to perform mass actions)...remembering the scrolled list/sorting when going to/from screens would be big on my list.
3) Umm...this may not be a realistic feature add...but ingame FACETOOL please!!!!
4) Please test the game's sim speed & provide some metrics(including CPU stats) for a reasonable variety of league configurations & make some recommendations for what is "too much"...i.e. 200 ML terams is fine w/ 1 level of minors, 160 is fine w/ 2 levels, etc. Also include Ghost players in Minors, Full Roster minors, etc.

[toddnorr]

Originally Posted by dashby

Since these forums are inundated with self-proclaimed text-simmers who ridicule console gamers, yet, probably spend more time engaged in Quake, Doom, Call to Duty, or WOW then OOTP I believe it's a well chosen label.

I spend about 4 hours a day playing OOTP. I dont even know what those other games are that youi listed.

[toddnorr]

Originally Posted by dashby

Arcade..schmarcade. What does arcade mean to you? A game that you play on a console? A game that you play on a PC that has graphics? My point that I will reiterate one last time: If you could have a statistically accurate game that also included graphics and audio would you pass that up for a statistically accurate game that gives feedback through text. I think most ppl would rather see Albert Pujols hit a 450 foot walk off home on their screen than read about it....all statistical simulation being equal, of course.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=136632

One of the great things about this game is that I can play out a season in a couple of months. I can read about the 450 foot hr much faster then I can watch it. Over a season that is a lot of time saved. I set my PBP to as fast as it will go and can play out a game in just about 10 minutes. Any other baseball game I have played I have never finished more then about 30 games.

[toxicavenger74]

Originally Posted by MadMax58

While the debate of graphics or no graphics is a good discussion...I'll try to stick to the original point of the thread. But I'd just like to point out one thing first...to say Markus is not a competent/skilled enough developer to implement graphics is like saying Pujols isnt skilled enough to bunt. Sure he could...the question is whether he should.

As BruceM said...it is difficult to evaluate what Beta testers should look for without a feature set...but here are a few items I'd like to see tested, which I think might be on the feature set.
1) Automated expansion of historical teams/divisional alignments. This coupled with an expansion draft would be nice additions, which I'd like to see fully fleshed out if implemented.
2) I'd like to see the UI interrogated. More responsive dropdowns...simplified navigation...ability to CTRL+click(or mass highlight in some way to perform mass actions)...remembering the scrolled list/sorting when going to/from screens would be big on my list.
3) Umm...this may not be a realistic feature add...but ingame FACETOOL please!!!!
4) Please test the game's sim speed & provide some metrics(including CPU stats) for a reasonable variety of league configurations & make some recommendations for what is "too much"...i.e. 200 ML terams is fine w/ 1 level of minors, 160 is fine w/ 2 levels, etc. Also include Ghost players in Minors, Full Roster minors, etc.

I agree completely.

[GeoWar]

I feel that OOTP2006 was a step back in some areas, but in depth of the game a step forward.

Areas d decline --- trading, front office mgmt,and setting weekly lineups ...

.