Patch #2 - New Features - Page 4

HH20xx convert · 07-03-2008, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitfire

Who knows, on some great day at some far off time, I may even be able to move my Single A manager directly to Double A!!!! The sky's the limit!!!!!!!

Didn't expect this glitch to still be here in OOTP 9. I hope Patch 2 will produce a fix.

Curtis · 07-03-2008, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HH20xx convert

Didn't expect this glitch to still be here in OOTP 9. I hope Patch 2 will produce a fix.

Markus declared this problem to be a PITA shortly before release.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitfire

I was referring to a cute picture posted in another thread of a woman kissing a donkey. It was posted after someone gave rather effusive compliments to Markus, if you get the drift.

So, in other words, an ass kisser. Got it.

fantom1979 · 07-03-2008, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Curtis

So, in other words, an ass kisser. Got it.

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ck-markus.html

just in case you were curious

07-03-2008, 07:53 PM

I know the AI is always going to have exploits so fixing the AI would probably be a bigger hassle than it's worth in this instance. Having ran an OOTP league forever and participated in several... I've noticed a lot of leagues have to combat contract issues in online leagues. From people offering insane dollar salaries in team/mutual option years to absurd incentives. My league just recently had a guy offer Barry Bonds -- 26 year old, studly Barry -- a deal like so.

2.8 mil / 3 mil / 4 mil / 7.9 mil (team option)

Naturally, we voided the contract. However, I tested it in a seperate file. I came here and researched this issue [and my league has the standard 10% and no crazy escalating option years w/ options etc...] using the search feature. I saw one guy claim it didn't affect the players willingness to sign. So, I decided to test it out.

Bonds was demanding a 4.5 x 2 deal: 9 mil total. But sometimes players sign for less than their demands. So, I tossed him a 3 year deal with no optiopns and took those three years and put them in. So, I offered him:

2.8 mil / 3 mil / 4 mil

His response? Well, he told me to take a long walk off a short pier more or less. So, obviously he signed the original deal based primarily on that 7.9 mil year that wasn't guaranteed. To me, Bonds should know better. Considering the average superstar in my league (1991 season) commands 4-4.5 mil per and Bonds is easily a top three player in the entire league... there's no way he'd accept a deal that essentially only guaranteeds him 9.8 mil over 3 years when he was demanding 9 mil for TWO years. But he did exactly that on the back of a ridiculous backloaded year with a team option.

Ideally, I think it'd be best if the game AI took into account how much of a contract isn't guaranteed and would refuse absurd deals like that. However, would it be too much to ask if in the league settings we could do the following:

A) Turn option years and incentives off. That way no one can offer any contracts with options or incentives.

B) An adjustable number that we can say the variance in salary can't be more than x-percent each season. So if you wanted to go with 10%, a deal like the one this GM gave to Bonds would be invalid. His years couldn't vary more than 10% from year to year. Or you can set it 20%, 50%. Whatever.

My league isn't the only one battling this issue and it'd really help the online league commishes, I believe. If we could just make the rules in the game and then it enforce it for us. Beat's checking each contract and voiding ridiculous stuff like this.

The Wolf · 07-03-2008, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spitfire

I was referring to a cute picture posted in another thread of a woman kissing a donkey. It was posted after someone gave rather effusive compliments to Markus, if you get the drift. Apparently the pic hasn't attained iconic status on the forum yet ......

Whew.

Corsairs · 07-04-2008, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by avwjase

I know the AI is always going to have exploits so fixing the AI would probably be a bigger hassle than it's worth in this instance. Having ran an OOTP league forever and participated in several... I've noticed a lot of leagues have to combat contract issues in online leagues. From people offering insane dollar salaries in team/mutual option years to absurd incentives. My league just recently had a guy offer Barry Bonds -- 26 year old, studly Barry -- a deal like so.

2.8 mil / 3 mil / 4 mil / 7.9 mil (team option)

Naturally, we voided the contract. However, I tested it in a seperate file. I came here and researched this issue [and my league has the standard 10% and no crazy escalating option years w/ options etc...] using the search feature. I saw one guy claim it didn't affect the players willingness to sign. So, I decided to test it out.

Bonds was demanding a 4.5 x 2 deal: 9 mil total. But sometimes players sign for less than their demands. So, I tossed him a 3 year deal with no optiopns and took those three years and put them in. So, I offered him:

2.8 mil / 3 mil / 4 mil

His response? Well, he told me to take a long walk off a short pier more or less. So, obviously he signed the original deal based primarily on that 7.9 mil year that wasn't guaranteed. To me, Bonds should know better. Considering the average superstar in my league (1991 season) commands 4-4.5 mil per and Bonds is easily a top three player in the entire league... there's no way he'd accept a deal that essentially only guaranteeds him 9.8 mil over 3 years when he was demanding 9 mil for TWO years. But he did exactly that on the back of a ridiculous backloaded year with a team option.

Ideally, I think it'd be best if the game AI took into account how much of a contract isn't guaranteed and would refuse absurd deals like that. However, would it be too much to ask if in the league settings we could do the following:

A) Turn option years and incentives off. That way no one can offer any contracts with options or incentives.

B) An adjustable number that we can say the variance in salary can't be more than x-percent each season. So if you wanted to go with 10%, a deal like the one this GM gave to Bonds would be invalid. His years couldn't vary more than 10% from year to year. Or you can set it 20%, 50%. Whatever.

My league isn't the only one battling this issue and it'd really help the online league commishes, I believe. If we could just make the rules in the game and then it enforce it for us. Beat's checking each contract and voiding ridiculous stuff like this.

This is a valid issue and the option suggestions are good ones, particularly the second one to set a "no more than x% variance in salary per year" variable. Obviously the best case scenario would be to improve the AI as it relates to player contracts, but that's of course much easier said than done! An option to place a cap on bonuses and salary variance would be the next best thing.

MidnightPyro · 07-04-2008, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Hey guys,

I'll introduce a new option in the second patch (due mid July): Scouting Accuracy. You can select the accuracy of the scouting engine, ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high). This will take care of complaints about the accuracy one way or the other

Also, there will be some sort of player development report, although I am not sure yet how this will look in the end... I'll keep you posted.

Cheers,
Markus

This combined with the development report and I think the game will be amazing.

bp_ · 07-04-2008, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScottPoseSnag

I've got say, that is what makes this game so amazing. With just about any other game, if you had a complaint about the game, or something you thought could be better, you had to wait a year to see if they would possibly fix the problem, if they even acknowledged there was one, and then there would inevitably be something else that would bother you. Here, the developer reads feedback in real time and then "Voila" there is a new option to address it. Amazing.

"

spitfire · 07-04-2008, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Whew.

Hey man, I'm weird, but I ain't THAT weird!!!!!!!!!!!

spitfire · 07-04-2008, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Yep, it's right in the middle now...

Jeepers, the scary thing here is that you could turn the scouting to 1 and it would be even worse in the inaugural draft than it is now!!!! The mind reels!!!!!!!!!

Curtis · 07-04-2008, 05:10 AM

Development report! That's kind of gotten lost in the meanderings of this thread.

What is a development report? Would it give me the same evaluations for my major league players that the minor league report gives me for guys in the minors? That's something I would really appreciate.

deadringer · 07-04-2008, 01:51 PM

Is there any way you could separate the accuracy of current ratings and potential ratings?

My biggest problem with the scouting as it is right now is that scouts struggle so much with player's current ratings. I'm all for having them struggle with a player's projected ratings (after all they're trying to predict the future) but you would think that professional level scouts should be able to take a look at players at the major league level playing against their peers and accurately gauge where they are right now. I'm not saying that even that should be perfect but it should be a lot more accurate than projecting for guys that are young and playing in the minors.

Markus Heinsohn · 07-04-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadringer

I'm all for having them struggle with a player's projected ratings (after all they're trying to predict the future) but you would think that professional level scouts should be able to take a look at players at the major league level playing against their peers and accurately gauge where they are right now. I'm not saying that even that should be perfect but it should be a lot more accurate than projecting for guys that are young and playing in the minors.

That is already the case... the more pro experience, the more accurate is the report.

bababui · 07-04-2008, 02:46 PM

OOTP should take a page from the book of FM and not have scouts scout ones own team. Each major league team and its set of minors have a full staff of coaches that watch the team every day. There really is no need to scout one's own organization.

rwd59 · 07-04-2008, 06:54 PM

Hey Markus, how about returning the option to have historical players import with their fielding based on their entire career rather than their rookie season?

GMahler · 07-04-2008, 09:23 PM

Will this be a traditional patch with an installer, and if so, will the contents of the first patch be included? Thanks

battists · 07-04-2008, 09:28 PM

All patches will include all of the previous contents. I don't have an answer yet on the traditional "patcher" tool. We're working on that right now. Our patching tool went away with the split from SI...

bababui · 07-04-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by battists

All patches will include all of the previous contents. I don't have an answer yet on the traditional "patcher" tool. We're working on that right now. Our patching tool went away with the split from SI...

Marc Duffy reads these boards and this game has brought a lot of mew customers to FM/WWSM. Maybe SI can do a good deed and allow Markus to use their patching technology.

GMahler · 07-04-2008, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by battists

All patches will include all of the previous contents. I don't have an answer yet on the traditional "patcher" tool. We're working on that right now. Our patching tool went away with the split from SI...

Now I understand even more the meaning of your logo "P!SD".........

deadringer · 07-05-2008, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

That is already the case... the more pro experience, the more accurate is the report.

I don't think I made my point clear. I'd like to separate the accuracy of current and potential ratings so that current ratings are more accurate at all levels.

It seems to me that scouts would have a much easier time evaluating a player's current ratings then guessing where he'll become.

07-03-2008, 07:53 PM	#64
avwjase Guest Posts: n/a	I know the AI is always going to have exploits so fixing the AI would probably be a bigger hassle than it's worth in this instance. Having ran an OOTP league forever and participated in several... I've noticed a lot of leagues have to combat contract issues in online leagues. From people offering insane dollar salaries in team/mutual option years to absurd incentives. My league just recently had a guy offer Barry Bonds -- 26 year old, studly Barry -- a deal like so. 2.8 mil / 3 mil / 4 mil / 7.9 mil (team option) Naturally, we voided the contract. However, I tested it in a seperate file. I came here and researched this issue [and my league has the standard 10% and no crazy escalating option years w/ options etc...] using the search feature. I saw one guy claim it didn't affect the players willingness to sign. So, I decided to test it out. Bonds was demanding a 4.5 x 2 deal: 9 mil total. But sometimes players sign for less than their demands. So, I tossed him a 3 year deal with no optiopns and took those three years and put them in. So, I offered him: 2.8 mil / 3 mil / 4 mil His response? Well, he told me to take a long walk off a short pier more or less. So, obviously he signed the original deal based primarily on that 7.9 mil year that wasn't guaranteed. To me, Bonds should know better. Considering the average superstar in my league (1991 season) commands 4-4.5 mil per and Bonds is easily a top three player in the entire league... there's no way he'd accept a deal that essentially only guaranteeds him 9.8 mil over 3 years when he was demanding 9 mil for TWO years. But he did exactly that on the back of a ridiculous backloaded year with a team option. Ideally, I think it'd be best if the game AI took into account how much of a contract isn't guaranteed and would refuse absurd deals like that. However, would it be too much to ask if in the league settings we could do the following: A) Turn option years and incentives off. That way no one can offer any contracts with options or incentives. B) An adjustable number that we can say the variance in salary can't be more than x-percent each season. So if you wanted to go with 10%, a deal like the one this GM gave to Bonds would be invalid. His years couldn't vary more than 10% from year to year. Or you can set it 20%, 50%. Whatever. My league isn't the only one battling this issue and it'd really help the online league commishes, I believe. If we could just make the rules in the game and then it enforce it for us. Beat's checking each contract and voiding ridiculous stuff like this.

07-04-2008, 05:10 AM	#71
Curtis Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Watertown, New York Posts: 4,567	Development report! That's kind of gotten lost in the meanderings of this thread. What is a development report? Would it give me the same evaluations for my major league players that the minor league report gives me for guys in the minors? That's something I would really appreciate.

07-04-2008, 01:51 PM	#72
deadringer All Star Reserve Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: La Grande, Oregon Posts: 994	Is there any way you could separate the accuracy of current ratings and potential ratings? My biggest problem with the scouting as it is right now is that scouts struggle so much with player's current ratings. I'm all for having them struggle with a player's projected ratings (after all they're trying to predict the future) but you would think that professional level scouts should be able to take a look at players at the major league level playing against their peers and accurately gauge where they are right now. I'm not saying that even that should be perfect but it should be a lot more accurate than projecting for guys that are young and playing in the minors.

07-04-2008, 06:54 PM	#75
rwd59 All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: LA (Lower Alabama) Posts: 934	Hey Markus, how about returning the option to have historical players import with their fielding based on their entire career rather than their rookie season?

07-04-2008, 09:23 PM	#76
GMahler Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 43	Will this be a traditional patch with an installer, and if so, will the contents of the first patch be included? Thanks

07-04-2008, 09:28 PM	#77
battists Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 18,506	All patches will include all of the previous contents. I don't have an answer yet on the traditional "patcher" tool. We're working on that right now. Our patching tool went away with the split from SI...