Tiny update!

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by fintach

I have to say, I only just found out this game exists, but I'm having a fantastic time with it!

And the longer you play, the more you will enjoy it as you get deeper into it.

If it ever gets too easy for you, look up the stats-only threads for advice on how to make it really challenging.

[Jaxxvain]

Originally Posted by oman19

Yeah I've seen that one. i just would like a report that kept track of the ALL-Time head to head records. Maybe I'm missing but if not seems like a simple addition but then again I'm not a programmer.

+1

This seems to me something very easy to do.

[thbroman]

Markus or Steve, I'm a little unclear about something: this "tiny" update isn't the same thing as what was alluded to by Steve in his "Gearing Up for a Big Update" thread, is it? If it is, that's what I call downsizing!
But I'm hoping not . . . .

[Malleus Dei]

One man's big is another man's tiny.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

One man's big is another man's tiny.

Whew --
MD, that one calls for a

[CalvinHobbes]

Originally Posted by thbroman

Markus or Steve, I'm a little unclear about something: this "tiny" update isn't the same thing as what was alluded to by Steve in his "Gearing Up for a Big Update" thread, is it? If it is, that's what I call downsizing!
But I'm hoping not . . . .

This is a tiny update on the big update. If that makes sense.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by thbroman

Whew --
MD, that one calls for a

In my world, almost everything calls for a beer.

[cdidman]

Great game already! Very addicting.

I put some "wishes" in the big update thread like being able to praise a player or punish a player, getting results like what we are getting out of Florida right now.

But if the managerial points can't get added, I really hope friendships and dislikes are added some how.

Players in real life like and dislike certain players and managers, probably owners too. So I would like to see in players bio's where it says that a player has formed a friendship with a player or players. Or possibly dislikes a player, manager or owner. This could be done by matching like attribute players. Players with the same or similar attributes would gravitate towards each other and possibly form a friendship. Players with very different attributes would have greater chances of not liking each other.

The effects of this likes and dislikes would be a improved overall "chemistry" of the team if you have a lot of players who like each other, possibly causing a team to play better or over achieve. A team with a lot of players disliking each other would have a lower chemistry, causing a team to have a greater chance of under achieving.

It would also effect a players decision to sign an extension or sign as a free agent. Number of effects it could have in the game which I feel would really benefit a already outstanding simulation.

[Malleus Dei]

Cdidman, are you an ex-Mogul player by any chance?

[RamMan12]

He actually sounds more like a player of FM. What he said is more like what you see in that game.

[thbroman]

Yup -- that sounds like FM talk to me, too. Not that that's bad - in my opinion FM sets the standard on player psychology and team chemistry.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Cdidman, are you an ex-Mogul player by any chance?

All those features are very Football Manager too. (I haven't played Mogul in years, I dunno if that's part of their current feature set.)

Features like that have their pluses and minuses. The biggest minus is probably that it can be very overwhelming to a player who expects to be able to effectively micromanage every last detail of every player. It's a big turn-off for those sorts of players (although some may not be playing with the current "personalities" system anyway).

I think that the plus side is that (given that you play with "personalities" on) it could be used to effectively run more realistic development.

I touched on this during one debate I had recently, in regards to parts of OOTP that had no real statistical basis in fact and were implemented using common sense/instinct to model the system with a goal of playability rather than literal realism.

The point I was arguing against was a general idea that new features should not enter OOTP unless there was some way of proving cause and effect via hard data and analysis. My argument against was that there are already features in the game that couldn't have relied on hard data and they also happen to work fine, from a playability standpoint.

It also brought up the point that in real life, I don't think you can broadly assign that a coach is just generally "good" or "bad" at something. They won't affect all players equally. Coaching is more likely effective or non-effective based on the talent of the player and the relationship between the coach and player.

There is a balance of realism and gameplay (especially ease of gameplay) that needs to be made with developing a game. I'm firmly in the camp that the gameplay should trump the realism where they conflict, but I'm certainly not the only voice. Everyone here is respected and some may agree with me, some may be firmly in the camp of realism first, and some may be more moderate.

I marvel at LGO's knowledge of the rules of the game, but I know that I've seen plenty of examples of rules that he's brought up that would make the game more complex to program, clunkier to play or both. Simply being as realistic as possible isn't the sole goal. That's why all games have aspects that approximate reality in a way that is engaging for the player.

There are aspects of OOTP right now that work despite having a lack of data. There's no data that I know of that defines how a pitching coach and batting coach play into player development. Let's face it - common sense dictates that a the interpersonal relationship between batting coach and hitter is far more likely than that the coach has a generic "skill" that equally affects all players.

Sparky Anderson once called Torey Lovullo "the finest young player I've seen Johnny Bench." So that proves two things: 1. You can't take anecdotal statements as fact (he may have been stretching the truth to make Torey feel better or increase his value) or 2. you can't assign broad values to things like "spotting talent" or "managing rookies" - there's just too much data where a single scout or coach will succeed spectacularly once and spectacularly fail in a similar situation.

So a player may credit a pitching coach with teaching him a devastating new pitch when that pitch could possibly stem from his natural talent (i.e. Roger Craig never created a squadron of Mike Scotts). How could you trust an interview?

So all the aspects currently in OOTP regarding coaching development is really gameplay designed off common sense - not hard data. And for any demerit you could levy against the realism of a system like that, nobody has to ask on the boards "what does Handle Rookies" mean?

I'm sure that I don't have to go into too much detail as to how the existence and effects of the personality ratings can't be programmed off hard data. But again, they are meaningful to the end user and you don't have to go through the 50 billion+ variables that it would take to approximate anything close to a real human mind to use and understand the system. So boiling it down to a few key variables to drive aspects of development for which we have no hard data is highly unrealistic, but very gameplay friendly.

[cdidman]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Cdidman, are you an ex-Mogul player by any chance?

I've played EHM from Sports Interactive for 5 years now. I was actually playing it before it went to SI. That game, to me, is the best sports simulation ever. OOTP is not far behind. There are a few things in OOTP I think that I need to learn more and could be added to equal East Side Hockey Manager. 1 would be the human aspect of the players, manager and owners. Like I said, I'm still learning this game, so I don't know if this is already figured in or not. I see that scouting reports mention stuff like he's liked in the club house and things of that nature, but I'm not sure if it effects team chemistry or not.

Also, one thing I wish would be tweaked also is the speed effect. I have seen this many times in the game simulation window. "So and So uses his speed to beat that throw out." The guy has 3 speed. I don't think players with 1 - 9 speed should be using their "speed" to beat anything out. lol (I'm using the 1-20 scale)

[cdidman]

Originally Posted by BMW

Features like that have their pluses and minuses. The biggest minus is probably that it can be very overwhelming to a player who expects to be able to effectively micromanage every last detail of every player. It's a big turn-off for those sorts of players (although some may not be playing with the current "personalities" system anyway).

I think that the plus side is that (given that you play with "personalities" on) it could be used to effectively run more realistic development.

I agree, but in my opinion, this type of game is not for the casual game fan, this is for people who are looking to micromanage a LOT of details, including micromanaging players. I would say this, to anyone who tries this out and is overwhelmed or doesn't like it, there are plenty of baseball games out there where you just push buttons and hit home runs.

But I do understand what you are saying.

[fintach]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

And the longer you play, the more you will enjoy it as you get deeper into it.

If it ever gets too easy for you, look up the stats-only threads for advice on how to make it really challenging.

I've actually started looking at those for down the road, getting a feel for how the long time vets like to play the game. For right now, though, I'm enjoying trying to evaluate talent in terms of ratings, my scouts (not to mention figuring out how far I can trust their feedback), combined with what a player has done the last two years (not real life stats, I try to avoid looking at those), current stats and what I see on the field.

Oh, then adding to the mix, the BNN personality ratings like Leadership and Work Ethic -- I'd rather have a good player who's a hard worker, someone I can count on to do his best, than a great talent who's a slacker. I hope these intangibles come into play over 162 games.

[Malleus Dei]

Fintach, you have a lot of happy hours ahead of you.

[BMW]

Originally Posted by cdidman

I agree, but in my opinion, this type of game is not for the casual game fan, this is for people who are looking to micromanage a LOT of details, including micromanaging players. I would say this, to anyone who tries this out and is overwhelmed or doesn't like it, there are plenty of baseball games out there where you just push buttons and hit home runs.

But I do understand what you are saying.

Let me restate that a bit.

Certainly there aren't many people who really want only an arcade-style baseball game playing OOTP. That's a given.

But even given that the primary audience for OOTP is going to be predisposed to a stat-sim style game, you have different ways of playing it and you also have thresholds of how much players will want to micromanage.

If you were to include relationship-type ratings that affected team chemistry and/or coaching and/or signing decisions amongst the people who who play with personality ratings on, you could probably break them down into four groups:

1. Those who enjoy searching through the 40-200 players in their organization to see who likes/hates who and trying to base decisions on it.
2. Those who accept the system and are content to let it perform organically - i.e. they don't really bother looking at the system until their star player turns down a contract and finds out that he hates your manager. And they accept it as just "part of life" (as simmed by the game).
3. Those who don't like the system, because it impedes on their ability to know and manage all things regarding their players at all times. Keep in mind, a system like this creates a massive web of conflicts (by design). Some people who micromanage won't like a system where there is no "right" answer.
4. People who, at a basic level, just feel that system is wrong. Whether it be too much detail or that it detracts from a game where I base a player on his hitting and pitching stats/ratings and now feels like I'm playing "The Sims" rather than a baseball simulator.

An example of someone in category 3: My best player hates the manager. But my best starter loves my manager. I have no realistic way of getting a single manager that all 40 guys on my roster all love. Ergo, I don't like this system.

I'm not saying I agree with that, I actually think that sims like this (not games that have a predefined endpoint - like, "I beat the final boss in God of War III") should be full of grey areas.

There will be a vocal group of people in category three and four.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by fintach

Oh, then adding to the mix, the BNN personality ratings like Leadership and Work Ethic -- I'd rather have a good player who's a hard worker, someone I can count on to do his best, than a great talent who's a slacker. I hope these intangibles come into play over 162 games.

There was a recent thread, I'll post a link later, on this and I was shocked at how much stock people put into personality over obvious talent. As a part of a comprehensive evaluation of similar players I get that personality can be and may be a deciding factor.

In OOTP and IRL fully developed ability will perform despite personality flaws. I tend to favor personality more in my second tier players while obviously not turning down any player who has ability and good intangibles.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by spitfire

You've got 17 pages of suggestions ....... take your pick!

Yes.. get to reading!

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by BMW

There will be a vocal group of people in category three and four.

This is why everything like this should be optional.