Personnel Personalities

[opie]

Which coaching personnel do personalities matter outside of Manager and Bench Coach? Hitting/Pitching coaches? 1B/3B? AGM? Trainer? Scout?

I tried to look it up in the OOTP23 manual but it doesn't even confirm the existence of 1B/3B coaches.

[Marinersfan51]

They matter in how they interact with other coaches and their personalities and it can effect staff cohesion. No idea if that actually has any effect on the results, since personnel impact has been kept pretty vague.

[Pelican]

Unknown. I honestly don't waste much thought on staff personalities beyond the Manager. For coaches, I like the options for the type of player profile a hitting coach or pitching coach favors. I look for scouts who are good at working the bushes (amateurs), rather than the majors or the minors (I can do that). I like guys who are best at teaching young players. To me, all those variables matter a whole lot more than personality. I played for all kinds of coaches. I don't recall any correlation between personality and ability to help me. Sometimes the crusty arrogant anti-social guy knows baseball best.

[Pdubya64]

I look at the staff interaction relationships, but I tend to focus much more on each coach's relationships with the players on a team.

This lack of base info is really one of my top pet peeves with OOTP lately.
Look, I don't want to expose the innards of how and why the game engine does things and spoil the experience but...

The manual need to be rewritten from scratch. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the staff has been cutting and cobbling together the online manual for years now, it gets short shrift and it shows.
I have a lot of questions on just basic definitions and workings.

For instance:
I STILL can't get an answer on what the game definition for "Adaptability" is. Oh, I know what the word means, but that may or may not explain its function in OOTP. Does it affect how well players cope if/when asked to change positions? Probably, but we don't know because they haven't taken the time to define it.
FRUSTRATING!!

Again... REWRITE - TOTAL. Tired of this stuff every year.

[md40022]

Originally Posted by Pdubya64

This lack of base info is really one of my top pet peeves with OOTP lately.
Look, I don't want to expose the innards of how and why the game engine does things and spoil the experience but...

The manual need to be rewritten from scratch. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the staff has been cutting and cobbling together the online manual for years now, it gets short shrift and it shows.
I have a lot of questions on just basic definitions and workings.

For instance:
I STILL can't get an answer on what the game definition for "Adaptability" is. Oh, I know what the word means, but that may or may not explain its function in OOTP. Does it affect how well players cope if/when asked to change positions? Probably, but we don't know because they haven't taken the time to define it.
FRUSTRATING!!

Again... REWRITE - TOTAL. Tired of this stuff every year.

All of this. And I mean ALL of this.

I was begging to get an explanation on something a few weeks ago and while I did get a response (after a few weeks) the response did incorporate words and phrases like "shouldn't" and "i don't think". No certainty at all.... almost like they don't even know what certain things do, lol.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Pdubya64

The manual need to be rewritten from scratch. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the staff has been cutting and cobbling together the online manual for years now, it gets short shrift and it shows.

..............

Again... REWRITE - TOTAL. Tired of this stuff every year.

Can't happen. There's no internal documentation on which to base a rewrite. No one knows how the game works except what they happen to remember.

[dcordash]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Can't happen. There's no internal documentation on which to base a rewrite. No one knows how the game works except what they happen to remember.

Unless you're just saying that flippantly, or joking period..if any truth there lies..how can the customer base put any sort of faith in any aspect of the game?

But, I agree, there is so many verbose boomerangs in-order-to-obscure replies to folks asking how/why something works in this game.

If someone pops up with an issue that is blatantly off the rails, we'll get half a dozen replies about all the settings (that not only the new customer are completely unaware of, but most people that have been playing the game for years) that should/might/likely address the issue. Perhaps they do nothing..who knows. But is sure sounds like it "might"

I feel like I'm at a spin convention.

You know what the difference between rationalization and reason is? Reason applies logic and non-contradictory methods to identify the facts of reality. Rationalization, on the other hand, means starting with a conclusion (OOTP nails it and is pretty much the most realistic MLB simulation anyone short of God himself could design), and then trying to work backwards to prop it up.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by dcordash

Unless you're just saying that flippantly, or joking period..if any truth there lies..how can the customer base put any sort of faith in any aspect of the game?

People play the game and figure things out for themselves or not but the game still plays.

Thirty years ago games often didn't work as the manual said and had undocumented features. People figured it out and went on.

The difference back then is a game got to V 1.02 and was discontinued. People have higher expectations now when they're on V 23.64

As to your first comment about being flippant or joking, I'm not. A year or two ago on the discussion of real stats it came out due to customer research that real stats aren't what is described in the manual, aren't real, and aren't what people working on the game thought they were.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by dcordash

You know what the difference between rationalization and reason is? Reason applies logic and non-contradictory methods to identify the facts of reality. Rationalization, on the other hand, means starting with a conclusion (OOTP nails it and is pretty much the most realistic MLB simulation anyone short of God himself could design), and then trying to work backwards to prop it up.

There are some people around here trying to defend everything. If that's a criteria to be a volunteer who works on the game, it shouldn't be.

[dcordash]

Originally Posted by Brad K

People play the game and figure things out for themselves or not but the game still plays.

Thirty years ago games often didn't work as the manual said and had undocumented features. People figured it out and went on.

30 years ago games didn't have so many moving pieces. Pretty straight forward and discernible.

A stat-based sim like OOTP should be thoroughly documented, on point, and specific. The cause and effect of each and every setting should be explained. The user should know exactly what to expect to the extent they can say "yep, that worked" or "no, that setting does nothing", "or it completely screwed the pooch in ways I didn't expect".

Maybe they need to invest in a documentation specialist to burn through all the existing documentation and manuals, working with a decent test engineer and perhaps flesh out what works and doesn't. With an objective of getting it all on paper to eventually turn into a user manual.

Albeit 3/4 of the users would never read it, but at least it could serve as a definitive and timely point of reference.

Better than the 1/2 dozen different opinions and suggestions that fly around here when someone says "I'm not getting the results I expect".

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by dcordash

A stat-based sim like OOTP should be thoroughly documented, on point, and specific. The cause and effect of each and every setting should be explained. The user should know exactly what to expect to the extent they can say "yep, that worked" or "no, that setting does nothing", "or it completely screwed the pooch in ways I didn't expect".

Here is a question for you champ. What OOTP-like game offers what you are describing?

The other games I play (Football Manager, Europa Universalis, and Hearts of Iron) have manuals that are as vague and as incomplete as OOTP's is, even though those games are by developers that dwarf OOTPd in size. That tells me it probably isn't as easy as hiring a random documentation specialist for a few months.

I would love to have a thorough manual for OOTP, but I don't see the point in fantasizing about what the game "should" be like in a vacuum.

[dcordash]

Originally Posted by kidd_05_u2

Here is a question for you champ. What OOTP-like game offers what you are describing?

The other games I play (Football Manager, Europa Universalis, and Hearts of Iron) have manuals that are as vague and as incomplete as OOTP's is, even though those games are by developers that dwarf OOTPd in size. That tells me it probably isn't as easy as hiring a random documentation specialist for a few months.

I would love to have a thorough manual for OOTP, but I don't see the point in fantasizing about what the game "should" be like in a vacuum.

Well, ace, why can't OOTP strive for a higher standard?

I wished I had said it. Didn't, but surely agree with what someone else on this forum mentioned a couple days back, software companies anymore (more a trend in the gaming community) don't document as thoroughly as they should because they don't really want to put their necks on the chopping blocks with inferred qualities that don't really pan out. Documentation is binding and can be a Pandora's Box once handed out to the customers.

Especially in a game like OOTP that has 100's of different settings, meters, widgets, etc. that "supposedly" influence the game results. One of 2 things it's the most sophisticated game because of all these settings.
or it's the one most capable of throwing up smoke-screens and
excuses due to the "intrinsic" and complex design that factors in
100+variations of game play that not a single customer understands

Not saying I'm demanding OOTP do this or they suck because they don't have a manual, but it's pretty frickin' convenient they don't. All they have is the spin they get on this forum as to how it should work.

Not saying it's all spin, but when the developers don't really have an answer the dancing begins. I would expect that anyway. Intrinsic in the developer world.

[md40022]

I will say there is more than a few "veteran" members of this forum who answer questions with absolute certainty ---- only to be proven wrong later in the thread by someone who's actually done the research / testing.

You gotta take everything you read on here with a grain of salt. There's a lot of uncertainty on this game when it comes to settings and options.

I don't "game" enough to know what is or isn't normal with manuals, tutorials, etc. And at the end of the day, I do enjoy this game quite a bit. But yes, it would be nice if there was more clarity on certain things.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by dcordash

(OOTP nails it and is pretty much the most realistic MLB simulation anyone short of God himself could design)

That would be my (rational) conclusion, based on my own two an a half years experience with OOTP. Not a rationalization. I started with no loyalty to the platform or preconceived notions or expectations. I’m a baseball junkie who played other games - cards and dice to computer - for decades, and was curious to try something new. I underestimated the complexity, and it was daunting at first. There were “fits and starts”, and at least one developer intervention to rescue me. I persevered, enjoyed it, was blown away by the vast possibilities, and the challenge presented by a seriously realistic universe. Still am. Facts, experience, conclusion.

And then I stumbled upon this community of players with years of experience, wondrous mod creations, questions, problems, suggestions, ideas, and criticisms. I’m not much of a blogger or social media type, but I do enjoy the give and take in these discussions, as long as it does not get petty or personal. i’ve learned a lot. It’s a community.

I try my best to respect and validate those who have found the game lacking, and choose to vent here about their disappointment. We’re only human, and just because that was not my take, it does not mean it could not be someone else’s view. We all arrived with baggage of some sort. My expectations of a forty dollar game are clearly not the same as others. I have limited knowledge of programming, and little desire to “peek under the hood”; but i get how fascinating it can be for those in the field (or those who pretend to be) to analyze the game engine.

I am not much for conspiracy theories. Talk about rationalizations! Just because the game does not play the way you would like, that does not mean the developers planned it that way. If the game has flaws, and surely there are some (minor and fixable, in my view), I would expect they are the product of human error, in (what my programmer friends assure me is) a very complex program, constantly evolving. I don’t think it does any good to assign sinister motives to the developers (or the parent company), when in the end a flawed product in an open and highly-competitive marketplace would not sell. Marketing 101. Poor products fail.

Lastly I am blown away by the transparency of this company. I have some experience in this, as a customer, and there is simply no other example I could cite of developers not just responding in a timely and helpful fashion to bug reports and requests for help, but also monitoring these discussions and weighing in with explanations and clarifications and suggestions. Plus being up front with patches and fixes and changes and release dates. That is a personal level of commitment to product that is unique, in my world.

[dcordash]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I don’t think it does any good to assign sinister motives to the developers (or the parent company), when in the end a flawed product in an open and highly-competitive marketplace would not sell. Marketing 101. Poor products fail.

I'm not inferring sinister motives. I believe I'm just stating what I believe to be the code is doing sometimes. And, it doesn't match what many say it does..IMO humble opinion. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Pelican

Lastly I am blown away by the transparency of this company. I have some experience in this, as a customer, and there is simply no other example I could cite of developers not just responding in a timely and helpful fashion to bug reports and requests for help, but also monitoring these discussions and weighing in with explanations and clarifications and suggestions. Plus being up front with patches and fixes and changes and release dates. That is a personal level of commitment to product that is unique, in my world.

I agree you don't see many forums where developer's pop in for explanations. Perhaps that has to do with the laws of scale.

And, I programmed for decades and put up many a website, and can't even get my html right. We're all pretty flawed. Some just won't admit it.

[Pelican]

I have to chuckle at the discussions about the user manual. I can dimly recall that our first versions of WordPerfect arrived at at the office with a user manual (hard copy) that looked like a dictionary. I was too busy to bother with it. A few years later, I was stuck in a bad work situation, without support, and basically forced to fend for myself. With a little help from sympathetic friends, I plunged into Word and related Office programs, no training, just doing what I could, asking questions, using the Help function. What I learned was that the user manual was worthless, the programs were intuitive and designed to “learn by doing”, and that support was available when I needed it, specific to the issue I had.

Flash forward a couple of decades, my latest Mac Mini arrives, typical simple Apple packaging. No manual. Plug it in and turn it on. Problems? Easy access to FAQ and Apple Support. A whole world of users to consult. Responsible patches and updates. To me, OOTP works on that same model. And it works for me.

I mention all this because, with OOTP, I have only rarely and early on relied on anything in the user manual, such as it is. (The gap I found at that time has now partly been filled by the tutorials, which can be tedious.) Instead, I plunged ahead and began setting up my season sims. Once I realized how easy it was to save and back up, I worried less about getting caught in a bad place. I could start over; although that has only been necessary a couple of times, due to user error on my part. When I stumbled, I could turn to OOTP for support, or turn to these forums as basically an FAQ source, or to raise my issue. So, I don’t know that a comprehensive rewrite of the OOTP Manual is necessary, or would improve the knowledge base. As long as support works this well, and so many users are active with advice, I have the backup that I need.

[low]

I've been convinced for years that a lot of this stuff is just for show. Some of these things are superficial features that don't do anything at all. I'm also a cynical, untrusting a-hole, so take it as you will.

[dcordash]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I have to chuckle at the discussions about the user manual. I can dimly recall that our first versions of WordPerfect arrived at at the office with a user manual (hard copy) that looked like a dictionary. I was too busy to bother with it. A few years later, I was stuck in a bad work situation, without support, and basically forced to fend for myself. With a little help from sympathetic friends, I plunged into Word and related Office programs, no training, just doing what I could, asking questions, using the Help function. What I learned was that the user manual was worthless, the programs were intuitive and designed to “learn by doing”, and that support was available when I needed it, specific to the issue I had.

Flash forward a couple of decades, my latest Mac Mini arrives, typical simple Apple packaging. No manual. Plug it in and turn it on. Problems? Easy access to FAQ and Apple Support. A whole world of users to consult. Responsible patches and updates. To me, OOTP works on that same model. And it works for me.

I mention all this because, with OOTP, I have only rarely and early on relied on anything in the user manual, such as it is. (The gap I found at that time has now partly been filled by the tutorials, which can be tedious.) Instead, I plunged ahead and began setting up my season sims. Once I realized how easy it was to save and back up, I worried less about getting caught in a bad place. I could start over; although that has only been necessary a couple of times, due to user error on my part. When I stumbled, I could turn to OOTP for support, or turn to these forums as basically an FAQ source, or to raise my issue. So, I don’t know that a comprehensive rewrite of the OOTP Manual is necessary, or would improve the knowledge base. As long as support works this well, and so many users are active with advice, I have the backup that I need.

Agreed. Most ppl don't read manuals period. But, the manual could serve as a binding contract. A point of reference of what the game is supposed to do and what every setting should do right down to the percentage effect if should have on whatever catalyst it is relevant to.

Then there are no arguments or spin. It's just "if you don't believe me look it up in the book".

When I programmed we had to keep meticulous documentation, run-books, flowcharts, all that stuff.

But, I frequently found myself in situations where the user disagreed with the documentation. The product didn't perform as the documentation said it should. So, I would actually sit down with the user (higher level liaison representing the particular department) and show them the code.

I had many of my administrative users acclimated enough to unix/Linux script, Cobol, glink script (script languages in general that are very powerful), VB, etc. they could see the intent in the code. It was then up to them to document outcomes that digressed from what the code stated. When/if they could do that I would revisit the code in the context they found the issues.

But, no offense, with OOTP product I keep seeing statements from key people (I guess developers) that suggest it's all random and you're liable to see just anything. And, we'll back up the egregiously rare yet prevalent (contradictory statements I'm aware and my point) outcomes with points of time in baseball history that this transpired.

I never had that luxury. It worked exactly as advertised or it didn't and suddenly I was being called into a "come to Jesus" meeting with the Directors.

The code I supported was of the state government variety and any citizen of the state was actually entitled to look at it if they so choose. I didn't hide anything because I couldn't. I would have loved to have been able to call bugs..features. But, it didn't work that way. I was accountable and completely transparent.

Guess I'm coming from that "old-school" philosophy and standard. Likely not relevant anymore.

[dcordash]

Originally Posted by low

I've been convinced for years that a lot of this stuff is just for show. Some of these things are superficial features that don't do anything at all. I'm also a cynical, untrusting a-hole, so take it as you will.

Ha, yeah you don't have to be a cynical a$$-hole to find yourself wishing you hadn't dropped another $40-50 bucks for a game you keep getting disappointed by. Just a trusting a$$-hole that is vocal about his convictions and feelings of being letdown.

You know what the definition of insanity is - doing the same thing over and over expecting it to have a different result. S'pose buying OOTP every year is me being an insane a$$-hole. I dunno.

[kidd_05_u2]

Originally Posted by dcordash

I never had that luxury. It worked exactly as advertised or it didn't and suddenly I was being called into a "come to Jesus" meeting with the Directors.

The code I supported was of the state government variety and any citizen of the state was actually entitled to look at it if they so choose. I didn't hide anything because I couldn't. I would have loved to have been able to call bugs..features. But, it didn't work that way. I was accountable and completely transparent.

Guess I'm coming from that "old-school" philosophy and standard. Likely not relevant anymore.

You are so obtuse that you believe the game is scripted despite all the evidence to the contrary, evidence that you can test yourself very easily. At least you are now being more honest with yourself and admit there is no manual that would satisfy you, only an open-source game.