Turning Current/Potential Overall Ratings Off

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It's my thought (and this is just my opinion) that maybe the overall current & potential ratings should be based on a players most accomplished defensive position. This way, the AI always sees the maximum of what a player is. (remember the overall current & potential ratings are primarily used by the AI) This way, when making roster, trading, FA or any other types of transaction decisions, it will always see the "best" of what that player can be, and not a watered down version because there's a logjam at a particular position, and therefore player X is forced to man a position he's not entirely suited for. (which does happen, and that's fine). If the player eventually becomes more accomplished in another position (or just as good) then perhaps the overall & potential should reflect the more difficult position. (eg SS > 2B, or RF> LF)

So the current ratings would be based on the position the player is rated highest at, while the potential would reflect the position with the highest ceiling.

I'm just kind of thinking out loud here. As I said earlier, I love the idea of having overall current & potential ratings....just not the way they are currently implemented. I have to believe there is a better way of doing this, so that people DON'T feel the need to switch features such as this off.

Why do you believe that people "need" to turn ratings off?

I don't turn them off because I "need" to. I turn them off to get a more realistic experience. irl I don't follow ratings at all, I follow stats and results. It's the same with OOTP for me.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I don't think they are the same. Using the accuracy, you as the GM now have direct knowledge as to how accurate the report is. With the date(s) there is a bit more fog of war...you actually have to decide if YOU the GM think a player Neds further scouting or not. The accuracy feature sort of does this for you, and IMO takes away some of the fog of war.

That's just me though, so that's why I suggested it as a yet another option.

EDIT: I looked back on that thread, and think people completely overreacted....no idea what the problem there was. Just because the masses get upset over any and every little change (hopefully for the better) you can't stifle peoples' thoughts on how to improve things.

I have no idea if that was a suggestion from me or not...I don't think it was, but it still made a lot of sense if you ask me. Obviously the developers agreed. In fact, nothing was changed when it came to the screen they were talking about...all that was done was the addition of an "overview" screen.

Wait a second. At first you said you wanted a toggle on which to display by default. Now it sounds like you want the accuracy removed? Or maybe so far out of sight you don't see it? In either case I can assure you I don't want to search for something that has always been there for me. Haven't you posted many times in the past about streamlining the game and cutting down on options?

With regard to fog of war? Yes, I know the accuracy of the report according to the scout. But since it is a scout's report it has it's own fog of war built in. He is not always right. Yes? Also keep in mind I can already set my scout to low accuracy if I want more fog of war.

As is the blue color and "very high" tell me the report is fairly new. But you want me to only see "60/80" along with the date, then go to another screen to see the descriptor "very high"? In this case I'm taking two steps to get the info I already have. After doing player one I can move on and do player two, lucky me. It also works in the reverse. Report is yellow and low. I immediately know the report is old and if I want better I need to get a new scouting report. With your new method this too will be a two step process that will replace the "no step" process I have now. IE 60/80 and date, go to another screen, see the the "low" description, and think "I guess I better email this assignment to my scout". To me it's clicks I don't need to be making and adds nothing to the game. The challenge is the same as it's always been. Nothing has changed in that regard unless you are advocating the descriptions, IE low to very high, should be removed from the game.

How long will it take for me, and most users, to just come up with a "date rule"? IE I look at the Cur\Pot and the date is 1 week old? I'm good. Next player the date is a month old? Better get a new report if I want to be sure of this player's ratings. Once accustomed to the "new way" nothing will have really changed other than the presentation and ease of use. The date will replace the text description and color key, with the fog of war remaining the same.

Let's be fair on other users reactions. IOW they overreacted in your opinion.
Not trying to stifle anyone's thoughts but I do sometimes get nervous when Markus reacts by making an immediate change based on one comment. Years ago Markus posted screens of the new player pages for the upcoming game. The box with their career stats, season stats etc. was a secondary color and it made it stand out. I and many others commented it was quite nice. One person came in the thread and had a fit. Result, it was changed back to the "one color for all". Many, like me, who posted they liked the initial design and, said we preferred it, were told "well we can't keep switching it back and forth". So we stayed went with the "opinion of one". It does happen.

[PSUColonel]

I was just saying that the more reports in a closer span of time, the more accurate the reports would likely (maybe) be. To me, it just seems like a more realistic way to determine how well a player is scouted, since IRL this is basically what you would have to go on....rather than a gamey (IMO) color coded icon.

It's such a small thing that I cannot believe the amount of uproar people get into. That's all really, it is an observation and that's it.

I also believe the dynamic overall current/potential rating to be very gamey in that it changes "on demand". Same here...just an observation and a very small suggestion. I am just astounded at the uproar again.

Perhaps I should just keep y ideas behind closed doors. Not because I am opposed to sharing them (after all that's why I try to sometimes "think out loud") but because people start jumping all over any kind of idea for small change, that hasn't even been considered as of yet. I believe in the working process of sharing ideas, but seem more often than not lately to be met with a healthy degree of skepticism and outright disagreement on a sometimes absurd level.

It's one thing to genuinely disagree with someones ideas, thoughts or philosophies...it's another to simply disagree because of the source from which they came. (which is what's happening here and in many other threads). People don't even try to expound on ideas simply because they may be new or imply some small amount of change. This is why perhaps they should not be discussed in the open.

[LansdowneSt]

There will always be "gamey" elements and that isn't an inherently bad thing needing to be fixed. It's a game. A lot of people don't want Chaim Bloom's real job in OOTP. They want just the fun, interesting, and baseball-centric parts of his job. Where that line is, of course, reasonable people can disagree with.

Please remember that a response to a posted proposal can be earnest and passionate but that doesn't mean it was sent in anger or intended to be a personal attack. Sometimes tone is text is hard to read, but generally speaking, most folks are trying to offer concerns over the proposals on the merits and offer a different point of view that might not have been considered as game play approaches differ between users. Even if they do so in earnest.

[locuspc]

I would simply ask my scouts to give each player a color coded icon that summarizes how well scouted they consider that player to be. That should be well within their abilities and now OOTP is realistic again.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I was just saying that the more reports in a closer span of time, the more accurate the reports would likely (maybe) be. To me, it just seems like a more realistic way to determine how well a player is scouted, since IRL this is basically what you would have to go on....rather than a gamey (IMO) color coded icon.

It's such a small thing that I cannot believe the amount of uproar people get into. That's all really, it is an observation and that's it.

I also believe the dynamic overall current/potential rating to be very gamey in that it changes "on demand". Same here...just an observation and a very small suggestion. I am just astounded at the uproar again.

Perhaps I should just keep y ideas behind closed doors. Not because I am opposed to sharing them (after all that's why I try to sometimes "think out loud") but because people start jumping all over any kind of idea for small change, that hasn't even been considered as of yet. I believe in the working process of sharing ideas, but seem more often than not lately to be met with a healthy degree of skepticism and outright disagreement on a sometimes absurd level.

It's one thing to genuinely disagree with someones ideas, thoughts or philosophies...it's another to simply disagree because of the source from which they came. (which is what's happening here and in many other threads). People don't even try to expound on ideas simply because they may be new or imply some small amount of change. This is why perhaps they should not be discussed in the open.

But... if people don't respond there is no discussion. There is no anger on my part. As noted I don't think this does much other than change the number of clicks. If Markus loves this idea and changes it I will play it "as it comes".

The color code is gamey? Perhaps it is. But in todays world, with computers, email, smart phones etc., is there any chance that some things in the reports are actually color coded? Nobody uses Power point, Office, etc.?

We all strive for some type of reality. Trouble is each user has their own idea of what that is. When I read ideas here I first ask myself if it will make OOTP a better (more realistic, whatever that is) game. I also ask how will it affect the way I play.

I was in a discussion where a guy wanted the widget on field changed because he played on a small monitor. I spoke up that doing that would take away information from my game since I played on a larger monitor. He thought I was being selfish because I could click in different places to get that information. My response was "do you like having things you use taken out of the game?" Without any discussion maybe Markus or Matt sees his idea and thinks it's brilliant. Should I have stayed quiet?

[Pdubya64]

I agree Sweed. There are other non-baseball games I have played where a decent chunk of players are those who are on a fixed income. They don't upgrade their PC much if ever. So it ends up stretching the breadth of tech from older to new wrt monitors, 4:3 vs. widescreen, faster CPUs and GPUs.
I have been in many discussions where the "old farts" get rather ticked about changes that would make things different or unusable.

While I can understand and try to relate, personally I am not very restricted in my PC discretionary outlay, so I tend to side with modern improvements. I do think folks need to speak their mind, but these days with everyone on edge it makes it challenging to hold a good discussion at times.

I have had my own moments where I get fed up with how the game does or doesn't do things to my liking. Once in a while I rant about it, like my "Adaptability" post that kicked off a mini hate-fest in the thread. I was just blowing off steam, but I probably should have toned down the post in reflection.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Sweed

But... if people don't respond there is no discussion. There is no anger on my part. As noted I don't think this does much other than change the number of clicks. If Markus loves this idea and changes it I will play it "as it comes".

The color code is gamey? Perhaps it is. But in todays world, with computers, email, smart phones etc., is there any chance that some things in the reports are actually color coded? Nobody uses Power point, Office, etc.?

We all strive for some type of reality. Trouble is each user has their own idea of what that is. When I read ideas here I first ask myself if it will make OOTP a better (more realistic, whatever that is) game. I also ask how will it affect the way I play.

I was in a discussion where a guy wanted the widget on field changed because he played on a small monitor. I spoke up that doing that would take away information from my game since I played on a larger monitor. He thought I was being selfish because I could click in different places to get that information. My response was "do you like having things you use taken out of the game?" Without any discussion maybe Markus or Matt sees his idea and thinks it's brilliant. Should I have stayed quiet?

Sweet I am not really directing my frustration at you so much. I think this thread just got off to a very bad start from the get go.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Sweet I am not really directing my frustration at you so much. I think this thread just got off to a very bad start from the get go.

I'm glad I was certainly hoping it wasn't me that was causing your frustration.

I don't doubt your motives at all.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Pdubya64

I agree Sweed. There are other non-baseball games I have played where a decent chunk of players are those who are on a fixed income. They don't upgrade their PC much if ever. So it ends up stretching the breadth of tech from older to new wrt monitors, 4:3 vs. widescreen, faster CPUs and GPUs.
I have been in many discussions where the "old farts" get rather ticked about changes that would make things different or unusable.

While I can understand and try to relate, personally I am not very restricted in my PC discretionary outlay, so I tend to side with modern improvements. I do think folks need to speak their mind, but these days with everyone on edge it makes it challenging to hold a good discussion at times.

I have had my own moments where I get fed up with how the game does or doesn't do things to my liking. Once in a while I rant about it, like my "Adaptability" post that kicked off a mini hate-fest in the thread. I was just blowing off steam, but I probably should have toned down the post in reflection.

The funny thing is I'm the old fart I may be wrong but I think he was the younger one and had updated his laptop but it had a smallish screen.

I think Markus, over the 20+ years I've been around, and Matt in later years do a pretty good job of hitting a balance. I think in regard to OOTP I am a "glass is half full" kind of guy. I believe they love their game and get to as many things as they can each year. Others seem to think they are left out, by spite(?), because the area they think needs work didn't get it.

Every year as I play out my games the thought crosses my mind.. "if this is the last version ever made I will be fine continuing on with it." v23 is no different.

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I believe they love their game.

I hate to nitpick, but it’s no longer their game. They sold it.

PSU I may not comment a lot but I always appreciate the questions and concerns you bring to the forums.

I recently started playing with current/potential ratings off, and I like it so far. Makes it harder to find players you want/need, and pay attention to stats more. Scouting isn’t perfect, it is what it- I too wish they would develop more in depth scouting, but am happy with what they’ve done thus far.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by mytreds

I hate to nitpick, but it’s no longer their game. They sold it.

PSU I may not comment a lot but I always appreciate the questions and concerns you bring to the forums.

I recently started playing with current/potential ratings off, and I like it so far. Makes it harder to find players you want/need, and pay attention to stats more. Scouting isn’t perfect, it is what it- I too wish they would develop more in depth scouting, but am happy with what they’ve done thus far.

By the rule of law you are correct, they sold it. As to how it works? It's basically semantics. So that is what you have? Really? You think they stopped caring? What has changed since it was sold?

The day Markus posts "I know there are some huge issues still in the game but, management has told me there will be no more patches this year" I will concede that things have changed. Until something actually changes your point is moot.

[koohead]

It is not a perfect solution but I turned off Current ratings a few versions ago and have found it offers enough "cloud" to force me to evaluate stats when making roster decisions. Still a bit gamey when changing positions but I convince myself that all I know is potential and have no idea on whether or not the player will achieve said potential (see my recent thread on a prospect I was struggling with evaluating).

[MathBandit]

I recently joined an online league that plays with no Overall/Potential and while it's fantastic for letting each GM make their own valuations for drafts/trades to keep things interesting and volatile (since no one has the crutch of Overall/Potential to value players), but the one thing it also does is increase the amount of micro-managing and time wasted 100-fold for everything.

Are Overall and Potential the be-all end-all? Of course not. But when looking at a draft class of 2000 players (or the MiLB org chart of 150 players for another team) it takes an insane amount of time when you have to look at each and every player individually with no ability to quickly sift through the list to identify top candidates.

[RedsoxFan]

Stats only is the only way to go.

[Syd Thrift]

I've been doing stats only for years now - I do have defensive/speed/other ratings on and I turn on potential for the draft - because I just don't like the way OOTP or, to be fair, every other game that displays its ratings and tries to do "scouting", works. It's way too accurate for veteran players, for one, meaning that when a vet falls off you will know about it by the next scouting report (in reality, a scout might be the last person to be able to tell you a guy's fallen off, or else your scout should be a lot less accurate with vets; they should come in telling you that player X has dropped off when he actually hasn't, or that player Y is showing up to spring training in the Best Shape of His Life and is therefore due to be better when actually he's not).

Also, scouts, you know, scout people. The ratings they assign are based on watching them play or do things playing-adjacent, like showing up to batting practice. I think this does mean that you can't really have an accurate "current" report during the offseason unless the guy's playing in the winter leagues, and to some extent I think that report ought to be based on what the scout "saw". Like, if a scout is assigned to work the league for a week, gets to see a particular player play in 3 games, and he goes 0-12 in that time... well, you wouldn't rate him 20/20 but you'd be able to dive deeper into why he went ofer.

I understand that the game does all these things as a means to abstract something that is very complex and also at points very subjective. I prefer not to have that overlay. FWIW even with scouting turned off, you can click into a player's scouting page and read the scout's and OSA's latest take on the player in question (the Mad Libs style reports grade guys on what is basically a 1-5 scale for most things).

[cojo82]

psu should apply for a real baseball job already. baseball video games will never be perfect.

[uruguru]

I think the potential ratings are too unrealistic so I turn them off completely and set TCR to max 200 to make them unreliable for the AI as well. I set current ratings all to a 1 to 5 scale to resist the temptation to micro-manage the roster based on marginal rating differences. I also turn off scouting and just use OSA in order to level the playing field for the AI.

For AI ratings, I use 10/30/30/30, which is basically like the 25/25/25/25 that was persuasively argued in this forum but with even less emphasis on the base ratings once players get playing time.

[Pelican]

Originally Posted by Sweed

By the rule of law you are correct, they sold it. As to how it works? It's basically semantics. So that is what you have? Really? You think they stopped caring? What has changed since it was sold?

The day Markus posts "I know there are some huge issues still in the game but, management has told me there will be no more patches this year" I will concede that things have changed. Until something actually changes your point is moot.

More to the point, you need to look and what it is that was bought and sold, and the value the buyer placed on the product. In this kind of transaction, the buyer is looking to provide financial security for the business and its products, without wanting to meddle with a successful operation - or risk alienating a passionate fan base and customer base. I would seriously doubt that OOTP was sold in order to loot it of resources - either financial or human. Far more likely, in the corporate world, a well-heeled buyer sees the opportunity to take a successful operation “to the next level”, by providing resources. That necessarily implies not messing with the product. What was purchased was not just the product line, but the “goodwill” and the expertise of the developers. That is why they are still on board. They were the most important part of the deal. Expanding the customer base may involve things like graphics, that “purists” (I am using the term sarcastically here) like me, could not care less about. But, as long as the essence of the game engine is there (and it will be, if the owners have any business sense), I’m fine with that. The point is, in the real world, no one buys a successful business, just to run it into the ground. Rather, they give it resources and allow it the freedom of a profitable subsidiary.