One Pitch vs Pitch by Pitch

[Killing Time]

It may not have been missed. It may have just not been fixed.

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Just a 1-game data point...take it for what it's worth.

I just pulled up my one on-going league in v9 and played a game under the rule that I auto-simmed the opponents time at bat, and played pitch-by-pitch while my team batted. In addition, I made a rule that said I would take every pitch I could until my hitter either walked or got two strikes. Then I would swing away. No special strategies. Just take or swing.

Now, my team is pretty good...but I don't think it's ever lost a game under this structure. Today was no different. We were the visiting team.

This doesn't strike me as being particularly interesting.

Since there is a portion of the OOTP community that wants to play as clubhouse manager (which the game really isn't designed for), Markus gives those folks some buttons to click. Most of these don't cause a problem. The "take pitch" button, however, runs counter to the abstract design of the pitcher-batter duel in OOTP. It would be realistic only if the duel weren't so abstracted. Consider that the team in the field has no button for "Just throw strikes." Nor does it have a button for "Throw your best strikeout pitch when you get two strikes on the guy". Nor would the AI know how to use those buttons if they existed. If you want to use the "take pitch" button in unrealistic ways you should expect unrealistic results. In fact, if you use the "take pitch" button at all, you should expect unrealistic results (though probably not detectable).

I know there is a subset of the OOTP community that wants the game to punish them for doing unrealistic things. Given the limited bandwidth of the two guys who work on this game, I prefer they focus on higher priority items.

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by Afino

Apparently AI only uses the pen if you sim the rest of the game, not half-innings or innings. Can't stand it.

I've played the game in every mode I can think of, including simming half innings (in fact, I do that lot if the game gets somewhat lopsided). Never seen a problem of the AI keeping pitchers in past getting tired. With one exception: there is a problem in extra innings, when the AI seems to have some tendency to stretch out the pen. Probably a design feature, and probably needs another look to see if it's working quite as intended.

So, I don't know what RonCo is seeing or how to reconcile that with my experience.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by SteveP

I've played the game in every mode I can think of, including simming half innings (in fact, I do that lot if the game gets somewhat lopsided). Never seen a problem of the AI keeping pitchers in past getting tired.

Do you mean the AI's team or your own team? Because the AI's team will replace as necessary - but if I don't have the AI in control of substitutions, which I never do, unless I sim the whole game, my pitchers will NOT be relieved unless there's an injury.

It really sucks when suddenly I see

- that the AI's team scored 7+ runs in an inning and now my RP just threw 70 pitches
- rain delays that instantly exhaust a pitcher

[SteveP]

Originally Posted by Afino

Do you mean the AI's team or your own team? Because the AI's team will replace as necessary - but if I don't have the AI in control of substitutions, which I never do

If I read this correctly: you aren't letting the AI control substitutions. But you expect the game to put the AI in control of substitutions if you decide to sim part of the game, even though you say you never let the AI control substitutions. Have I got that right?

I suggest you put the AI in control of substitutions, and then change that option when you get to a sensitive part of the game or you think the AI might do something you won't like. That's what I do. Or you have to put the AI in control whenever you decide to sim part of a game.

[RonCo]

There probably needs to be a sace added that says: when simming a half-inning and a human-managed team's pitcher grows tired, add a pop-up that allows the human owner to make a replacement.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by SteveP

This doesn't strike me as being particularly interesting.

Since there is a portion of the OOTP community that wants to play as clubhouse manager (which the game really isn't designed for), Markus gives those folks some buttons to click. Most of these don't cause a problem. The "take pitch" button, however, runs counter to the abstract design of the pitcher-batter duel in OOTP. It would be realistic only if the duel weren't so abstracted. Consider that the team in the field has no button for "Just throw strikes." Nor does it have a button for "Throw your best strikeout pitch when you get two strikes on the guy". Nor would the AI know how to use those buttons if they existed. If you want to use the "take pitch" button in unrealistic ways you should expect unrealistic results. In fact, if you use the "take pitch" button at all, you should expect unrealistic results (though probably not detectable).

I know there is a subset of the OOTP community that wants the game to punish them for doing unrealistic things. Given the limited bandwidth of the two guys who work on this game, I prefer they focus on higher priority items.

I don't totally disagree with you, but the information I'm showing just say that the pitch-by-pitch approach will certainly modify the statistics of your league's output. It's also seems to be fundamentally a "cheat" if you use the Take button very much. I don't understand the value in it, since a hitter's patience is baked into his Eye/AvoidK ratings.

Bottom line: it just says the approach is flawed. There are only two solutions as best as I can tell--either redesign the game engine to truly resolve outcomes on the basis of individual pitches, or disable the feature.

[Afino]

Originally Posted by SteveP

If I read this correctly: you aren't letting the AI control substitutions. But you expect the game to put the AI in control of substitutions if you decide to sim part of the game, even though you say you never let the AI control substitutions. Have I got that right?

Yes and yes.

If I do any sort of simming, whether it's one half inning or the game, I expect the game to handle substitutions as necessary regardless of my settings.

I don't think that's an unreasonable proposition. Why should simming a half inning result in a potentially different result than simming the rest of the game from that point?

[RonCo]

Next game in the series, same house rules:


Results:
--------
Us 5
Them 2

Our pitchers: 141 pitches (starter lasted 7 innings)
Their pitchers: 233 pitches (starter lasted 4.0 innings and 108 pitches, five other pitchers appeared, one throwing 40 pitches, three others over 25)

My team's hitters:

1) drew 9 walks
2) had 9 total hits, one homers and two doubles
3) struck out 6 times

We average 11 hits, 2 homers, 1.5 doubles, 4 walks, and 6.5 strikeouts

This was the second game in a series, and now every relief pitcher on the opponent's roster is officially tired.


Next game:
----------
Us 7
Them 0

Our pitchers: 114 pitches (starter lasted 7 innings)
Their pitchers: 206 pitches (starter lasted 5.1 innings and 122 pitches, three others appears, one throwing 44 pitches). This starter was the opposing team's ace.

We scored 6 runs in the last 4 innings once we got to the bullpen.

My team's hitters:

1) drew 6 walks
2) had 6 total hits, three homers and two doubles
3) struck out 9 times

We average 11 hits, 2 homers, 1.5 doubles, 4 walks, and 6.5 strikeouts

[robc]

Originally Posted by RonCo

Next game in the series, same house rules:


Results:
--------
Us 5
Them 2

Our pitchers: 141 pitches (starter lasted 7 innings)
Their pitchers: 233 pitches (starter lasted 4.0 innings and 108 pitches, five other pitchers appeared, one throwing 40 pitches, three others over 25)

...

It's stuff like this that makes me wish Markus would just spend a release tightening up and polishing some aspects of the game. Something like this affects both historical and fictional players. I didn't know how unbalanced the take pitch feature is and used to use it with players who had a poor eye and a pitcher with bad control. If I play more OOTP at some point I'm definitely not using that feature.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by robc

It's stuff like this that makes me wish Markus would just spend a release tightening up and polishing some aspects of the game.

A lot of us want that, and for him to fix the legacy bugs that continue in version after version of OOTP. We also want mass select and copy and cut and paste.

But it's real clear that none of that is happening.

IMO this consistent refusal to address clearly stated customer needs is what will eventually cause OOTP's demise.

[robc]

Originally Posted by Killing Time

A lot of us want that, and for him to fix the legacy bugs that continue in version after version of OOTP. We also want mass select and copy and cut and paste.

But it's real clear that none of that is happening.

IMO this consistent refusal to address clearly stated customer needs is what will eventually cause OOTP's demise.

That is one reason I am having fun playing Puresim right now. I just got to witness a whole bunch of customer driven improvements (along with Shaun's own improvements) in the last couple months. I had taken a break from OOTP for several months and was in the mood for some baseball. I'll probably play OOTP some more when I'm looking for a change of pace, but for now I'm having fun with something else. And no, I don't own stock in Wolverine Studios and I'm not related to Shaun .

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by RonCo

There probably needs to be a sace added that says: when simming a half-inning and a human-managed team's pitcher grows tired, add a pop-up that allows the human owner to make a replacement.

Markus claims that adding popups for things (such as making sure you want to make a lineup change before making it final) would be too difficult to program. I kinda think that if being "difficult" is a legit reason for not doing it then why did he bother programing the game at all. I know that had to be difficult.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by robc

That is one reason I am having fun playing Puresim right now. I just got to witness a whole bunch of customer driven improvements (along with Shaun's own improvements) in the last couple months.

If OOTP doesn't get with it, we all may be joining you. No business can afford to ignore their customers for long.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Markus claims that adding popups for things (such as making sure you want to make a lineup change before making it final) would be too difficult to program.

Translation: "I don't want to do that."

[Afino]

There's people that use constructive criticism, and then there's just being a vengeful malcontent who seems to hold a grudge and who will never be happy.

Really - be more of the former than the latter.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by Afino

There's people that use constructive criticism, and then there's just being a vengeful malcontent who seems to hold a grudge and who will never be happy.

You should be more concerned about the quality and future of the game you play and less about insulting others.

Other game designers listen and fix things. Other game designers don't let the same bug carry on for version after version. Other game designers add requested features, some of them very promptly. Other baseball game designers do this. These are facts. If OOTP looks badly in comparison to the way that other games are maintained and designed and how other designers communicate with their customer base, jumping all over the person who is pointing the facts out, in hopes that things will get better, accomplishes nothing. I note that you didn't argue any of the factual points. How long have Curtis and others been calling for mass select-copy-cut-paste? How long have some of the bugs in this game been reported and not fixed? Why don't we have have verification pop-ups for critical decisions this many versions down the road?

I like and play the game, but like others, I will be moving on sooner or later if these things aren't addressed. How is posting that not constructive? I don't think or post that the game sucks. I like the game, Afino, but things need to change, and soon.

Change is needed badly at OOTP. The commitment to bug fixing and to addressing customer requests must improve. So far this isn't happening. There is competition out there, and it is doing these things, and the consequences of OOTP continuing to not do them because it doesn't want to will be serious.

If you don't think that's constructive criticism, then I don't know what is.

[RonCo]

Markus works hard to fix bugs, and he does a very good job listening to his customer base. I suggest his biggest issue is that he listens to a customer base that is too wide, actually, and tries to do enough to please everyone rather than focusing on only a single primary market segment.

So to say that OOTP does not respond to user's complaints is a mis-representation of the truth.

Saying you will move on is proper. Saying Markus is not responsive or is not interested in user's issues is inapproriate, and IMHO a shade on the boorish side. Markus's business plan is to make a wide, comprehensive game. I suggest he's doing just that, and he's doing it in a fashion that has been quite successful.

Of course, I do wish he would focus on some specific things. But that's because I have some personal things I think are important--and I tend to back those up with solid data on why they are so. I admit that my opinions are also based on my belief that the game should be most heavily weighted to on-field accuracy in the "fictional" world, entertaining development over the course of a fictional player's career, and simple, but fun GM tools. In other words, I favor an online player's mindset. I understand that.

Honestly, mass capture would be fine, but it doesn't even come close to my top 100. If he spends a month writing mass copy-n-paste routines, but doesn't do things I want, then I'll be highly disappointed. So this puts Markus in a tough place. Does he make the mass-capture guys angry, or does he make me angry?

It is not wrong to hold a developer accountable for his game. But it is wrong to misattribute an essence of neglect to his approach where that is not the case. This game has been strongly influenced by forces outside Markus's mindset, and I expect it will always be so as long as he's its owner.

I have had a couple fairly public disagreements with Markus's choices at times. This is because I will almost always support the user-base in any developer/user debate. But I highly respect Markus's fundamental approach to the user base, and to suggest that he is not one to listen is completely missing the essence of what he has been about for as long as I've been hanging around here.

[RonCo]

For example, Markus created the pitch-by-pitch mode in response to a user base push for it. This was a mistake, because the game's ratings don't support pitch-by-pitch results particularly well. I'm guessing it's required a shoe-horned design approach, and as my data shows, it's caused some insideous problems in the results engine. However, for some folks, it's more fun to watch the pitches go by, possibly even to the point that they can look the other way at the results issues it causes. So who is to say that this wasn't the "right" choice, even though I don't particularly care for it as designed.

I can say without doubt, though, that this entire feature was the result of a wave of requests from the user-base. At its root, I can argue that the user base was asking for something they didn't understand, and Markus "caved" to the pressure--though I don't think "caved" is the right term.

[jbergey22]

Well this whole "take pitch" test being used is going to be a hard one to test as there is no real life evidence to point out what would happen if a team did do that. For all we know it may actually be a great strategy.

I would just suggest that he removes it completely or its not an option until there is 3 balls on a hitter. I dont think anyone other than the pitcher gets the take sign with 2 balls or less at the MLB level.

I'm thinking MLB would lose a lot of fans if teams started to use the "RonCo" strategy