Initial Impressions Thread

[pstrickert]

To say $10 "is about worth what they put into each year to year version" might be an opinion, but even opinions can be ill-informed and serve no purpose other than to reveal the opiner's ignorance. I've had inside knowledge as a beta tester for many years. I can attest that the development team "year to year" work their asses off. Criticize the decisions they've made, if you wish; but please don't criticize their intentions or their effort.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

To say $10 "is about worth what they put into each year to year version" might be an opinion, but even opinions can be ill-informed and serve no purpose other than to reveal the opiner's ignorance. I've had inside knowledge as a beta tester for many years. I can attest that the development team "year to year" work their asses off. Criticize the decisions they've made, if you wish; but please don't criticize their intentions or their effort.

My apologies, what I said was indeed uncalled for.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by smiller

I was looking forward to buying the game, but Mr. Dietrich's comments and those of others right below him have put a stop to that. I'll see how things develop with future patches, but this is starting to look more and more like a year to stay with the previous version.

Why not just try for yourself, rather than depending on someone else's opinion?

If you buy the standalone version directly from us, you can can return it within 14 days of the purchase for any reason. So you risk nothing to try the game out and make your own determination.

[Braden]

It would be nice to see some historical options for those who like to actually play the games using Mike Silva's excellent historical parks, few that there may be. Options like choice of using, or not using, batting helmet, choice of modern or historical catcher's gear, including mask, ability to use the same uniform number for different players on the same team for those who like to play 'best team' type games which may have players with the same number but from a different era, the ability to modify the short PbP, so it is more realist in the voice mode.



I understand that the Perfect Team is the moneymaker but throwing historical season players a bone would be a nice improvement.

[progen]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Why not just try for yourself, rather than depending on someone else's opinion?

If you buy the standalone version directly from us, you can can return it within 14 days of the purchase for any reason. So you risk nothing to try the game out and make your own determination.

This is nice to know, and what I would consider "excellent" customer service. In an era where sadly, we tend to get crappy customer service with companies, you have bucked the trend.

[PepeSylvia]

I initially had a positive impression of this version but the more I played it the less enthused I was. This is the first year of OOTP that I've felt underwhelmed and disappointed by (I believe I've played since 2011). This year feels rushed and buggy.

Positives: Runs smoothly, sims faster, 15 year contracts

Negatives:
- Owner goal "negotiations" are basic and underwhelming for a new feature. You can sometimes swap one goal for another, they're still often nonsensical.
- Trade AI is unimproved, trading between AI teams is significantly worse and they aren't fixing it because they're afraid to make it worse (per patch thread). This is the worst part for me. Completely immersion breaking.
- Trading hard mode was an okay idea that needed major tweaking before release. This part makes me feel like they either didn't test it or didn't care about how bad it is. Reputation effect is unclear, you lose reputation for rejecting/ignoring AI proposals that are frequently awful. It makes no sense and just playing through one season during testing would have shown that. I know you can turn it off but this was a "feature" that was semi-hyped.
- Little care/attention seems to have gone into ratings. I know it is supposedly based on ZIPS but in some cases that doesn't appear to be the case. And some ratings not quantified by ZIPS like defense/range seem to be arbitrary in some cases.

I don't know. At this point it almost feels like a baseball simulation version of Madden where they're churning out roster updates with half-baked "improvements" and calling it a day. Maybe I'm alone in this, maybe not - I'll note that the steamcharts all time peak for OOTP 23 was 1,826 while OOTP 24 is 1,354. I'm sure a large portion of their sale come from their direct store and for all I know they went up this year, but it's hard to ignore that big of a dip with steam sales. Had to raise an eyebrow somewhere.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by PepeSylvia

I
- Little care/attention seems to have gone into ratings. I know it is supposedly based on ZIPS but in some cases that doesn't appear to be the case. And some ratings not quantified by ZIPS like defense/range seem to be arbitrary in some cases.

There are hundreds of hours and a ton of effort that goes into updating the ratings.

Obviously though, this is one of those areas where everyone can have their own opinion as to what's 'right' and I think reasonable people can disagree on that in a lot of cases.

As to some specific points, ZIPS is the base, but in certain cases it can end up being pretty heavily modified for one reason or another. For instance, in order to encourage the AI to get certain players onto MLB rosters, into starting lineups or rotations, out of MLB and into the minors, or to adjust where prospects fall in the prospect rankings etc. etc

As for the defensive ratings, I guess they are somewhat arbitrary, and I think this is probably the area where reasonable people can most easily disagree, since even a lot of the defensive metrics and scouting reports just do not agree with each other.

These are based on a combination of a lot of things, especially Baseball Savants runs saved, d-WAR from several different ratings systems as well as reputation and scouting reports. Because defensive metrics don't stabilize until you have around three years data though, we try not to overly emphasize the most recent year's data points.

Even after that, they also get tweaked even more to encourage the AI to set lineups and rosters as close to reality as possible.

Because the defensive ratings are so subjective though, we always welcome feedback on this and will make adjustments where needed. So if you see something here that looks glaringly off to you, please do feel free to comment on it here, and we can always take a second or a third look: https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=344802

[Lukas Berger]

Also, as far as assessing the ratings goes, be aware that scouting is on by default and this heavily randomly modifies the ratings and overalls.

So things can indeed look pretty weird unless you turn off scouting to see the 'real' ratings.

[Statsman1]

Some fast impressions that I have after about 4 different leagues created and the last 40 games...

1. There are just WAAAAAY too many infield hits, especially by guys with no business getting them. I am talking 20 Speed, 20 Running catchers legging one out when the infield is at DP depth. One team gave up 4 infield singles in 1 inning, 3 to players with Speed and Running ratings 25 or lower.

2. The RP and CL seem to be getting screwed over by the first batter they face...I have seen far too many relievers give up a hit right off the hop. As in, 4 or 5 relievers on both teams in a game, and this has happened a LOT.

3. I am not sure when things even out, but the default BABIP for the league (when I created a fictional league) was 0.284. After 4 teams have played 42 games, the BABIP for the league is around 0.390. The ERA leader is hovering at 5.00. This seems a bit odd, even for (what I am sure will be argued is) a small sample size.

Anyway...just me offering some observations. This is the 4th league I have created with OOTP24.

BTW - I love that the NO WAY guy seems to have been replaced by a JUST KIDDING guy. Talk about keeping it fresh.

[Pacoheadley]

Originally Posted by rudel.dietrich

This is probably what I will do. But for every third version.
$10 or whatever the playoff price is about worth what they put into each year to year version.

At least until the next version when they raise the price to $60 on launch day.

I love the game and have already bought it, and i know you've said the $10 comment was told far, but I get it. I'm not starting a save until a patch or two from now because of issues that make it hardly playable for me. The trading frequency glitch doesn't seem like a big deal to some, but it would ruin an early league for me and I don't want to timesink with that risk. I already have to babysit the AI more than previous versions lately by reverting odd releases and DFAs, and more is too much.

But also I'm the type who doesn't care about new features barely at all right now. I want a bunch of stuff cleaned up first. I've been thinking of taking the time to make a big list of QOL things that could be improved over years.

I don't want to sound ungrateful or mad at the developers at all either! It's an insanely hard task and still the best sim around, I just feel like the game has been harder to manage the more it grows and the more real life strategy moves away from how OOTP was built.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I love the game and have already bought it, and i know you've said the $10 comment was told far, but I get it. I'm not starting a save until a patch or two from now because of issues that make it hardly playable for me. The trading frequency glitch doesn't seem like a big deal to some, but it would ruin an early league for me and I don't want to timesink with that risk. I already have to babysit the AI more than previous versions lately by reverting odd releases and DFAs, and more is too much.

Trading frequency is still a customizable setting.

If you feel like the trading frequency is too high on normal, there's no reason to treat that like a bug that makes the game unplayable. Just turn turn the frequency down a notch or two and things should be much more to your liking.

[Karl Pagel Blues]

Originally Posted by Pacoheadley

I already have to babysit the AI more than previous versions lately by reverting odd releases and DFAs, and more is too much.

But also I'm the type who doesn't care about new features barely at all right now. I want a bunch of stuff cleaned up first. I've been thinking of taking the time to make a big list of QOL things that could be improved over years.

Agreed. Like you say, this is still the best baseball sim on the market. But the AI roster management, transaction and trade logic still has a lot of room for improvement.

And then I recall what Markus told me last year: "And I would love the perfect (yet still adjustable) AI for trading / roster management etc. But this is pretty much impossible."

From a GM player perspective, I wish the developers could skip one release version and actually spend a full 12 to 18 months cleaning up things under the hood, such as AI roster management and trade logic. More in-depth finances would also be great. But that's obviously not going to happen. So we have what we have. Which is a damned fine baseball sim.

[AB42]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

There are hundreds of hours and a ton of effort that goes into updating the ratings.

As a loooooong suffering Reds fan I'm hoping consideration is given to boosting Graham Ashcraft's ratings. Nick Lodolo looks like a future ace as well. No love for India either?

Loving the game as always, great work guys.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by AB42

As a loooooong suffering Reds fan I'm hoping consideration is given to boosting Graham Ashcraft's ratings. Nick Lodolo looks like a future ace as well. No love for India either?

Loving the game as always, great work guys.

Thanks

Lodolo is already rated to where he'd be a top 10 prospect if he was still prospect eligible. So pretty decent imo, even if you could make a case for a touch higher potential. Even at that, if he keeps his start up, he'll definitely get a boost before long.

India is rated as pretty much an MLB average starting 2B. He's a tough one, because his two MLB years so far have been opposite ends of the scale. So we've kind of split the difference for now.

For Ashcraft, I can definitely see a case to boost him a bit, especially if his improved K rate from his first couple starts carries over deeper into the season. He's definitely someone we'll have our eyes on for a potential boost a little later in the year if he keeps up his good start.

[renojedi]

I have played about 25 games (in one pitch mode) and am pleased for the most part with the game. I see little errors such as balls appearing to go foul but are a hit or text that is cut off but that is being corrected so that is good.

I play mostly as MLB but I wait at least a few patches to fix any glaring errors and to get the most accurate ratings of players, especially would be draft picks so I can play out 5-10 seasons before I move on to FHM.

While waiting, I play in the KBO. I only have one impression I want to shared and its that there is not enough to differentiate between the two leagues. Since OOTP has the KBO license, I would hope you would do more with it. It seems like just the MLB with different players and stadiums. The signs are all in English, the ambient sounds are in English, and players can't even be listed last name first as they are even in the English translated KBO sites. The signs are all generic so not sure why they can't say rental car and miso in hangul or why some ambient sounds from Korea couldn't be added. Those little touches would at least make it seem like something special. Again, this is a licensed league so this should come out of the box...I shouldn't have to look for Mods to do this (and I haven't found any anyway).

KBO is trying to start their season in the US next year to get more exposure so I am sure that might make a few more players try that league if that happens and a more accurate experience would be nice.

Other than that complaint, the game plays well, as it always does, and the new additions for the 3D game are nice.

[PSUColonel]

To me, the scouting model is a bit out of hand. Players are artificially being way overrated...especially prospects. I get that it's not their true potential, and I get that players' don't always reach their potential, and that the actual numbers are much lower....but it just destroys a sense of realism when you have 40 or more players ranked as 70+ potential as prospect.

There's nothing wrong with scouts being wrong on players, but it's how the sausage is made here that doesn't feel right. Most scouts will grade top prospects as 65 or 60...and then the player may or may not meet that projection. He may go over it to become more like a 70 or 80 type player, or he may fall short and end up as a 45 or 50...or god forbid a total bust. Players may be rated as a 45 and become a 55...this and everything in between. The way it's being done feels very gamey to me, and a bit artificial. For some reason there is a love affair with high scouting numbers that I don't understand.

[Syd Thrift]

IIRC scouting reports are supposed to have 1 standard deviation per 10 point difference. That means that if 45 is major league average, 68% of all major league quality players should be between, say, 40 and 50, with only the top 16% getting a 55 or higher. Then in turn only about 2.5% of all major league level players should get a 65 or higher, with 1 standard deviation above that - you’re talking 1 or 2 players in the entire league at this point - at a 75 or 80. Obviously baseball doesn’t follow normal distribution - even the guys good enough to be in the majors are way down the downward slope of a classic bell curve, even in OOTP terms - but I think it’s possible to just figure out SD for players currently on a major league roster and then fit draftees, international signings, etc. into that.

I am like 99.9999999% positive that the game handles 20-80 ratings on a linear scale instead of the logarithmic (semi-logarithmic?) scale of “classic” scout ratings. It’s waaaaay easier to code a linear scale, all the other ratings points are linear, and most people I think expect it to be linear. I have other issues with scouting, which is a big part of why I just leave ratings off/concealed, but this would be a nice add for the 3 of us who care about these things.

[Galeg]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

IIRC scouting reports are supposed to have 1 standard deviation per 10 point difference. That means that if 45 is major league average, 68% of all major league quality players should be between, say, 40 and 50, with only the top 16% getting a 55 or higher. Then in turn only about 2.5% of all major league level players should get a 65 or higher, with 1 standard deviation above that - you’re talking 1 or 2 players in the entire league at this point - at a 75 or 80. Obviously baseball doesn’t follow normal distribution - even the guys good enough to be in the majors are way down the downward slope of a classic bell curve, even in OOTP terms - but I think it’s possible to just figure out SD for players currently on a major league roster and then fit draftees, international signings, etc. into that.

I am like 99.9999999% positive that the game handles 20-80 ratings on a linear scale instead of the logarithmic (semi-logarithmic?) scale of “classic” scout ratings. It’s waaaaay easier to code a linear scale, all the other ratings points are linear, and most people I think expect it to be linear. I have other issues with scouting, which is a big part of why I just leave ratings off/concealed, but this would be a nice add for the 3 of us who care about these things.

Amen

[Statsman1]

Speaking of scouting, I use a scouting accuracy setting that is not 100%, but the next tier down (very high, I believe).

In a new fictional league, the initial draft gets completed absolutely first. There is no time to do anything concrete - I cannot hire personnel (only submit offers), or anything else.

So, off to the draft. When drafting, I will occasionally use the scout’s recommendation, but I try to build my team a particular way (high actual ratings for some positions, high potential in others). So I draft, based on the OSA ratings. Then, after the draft is done, NOW whoever my scout is gets to look at my team and I get the reports in due time.

Invariably, and I mean EVERY TIME, the initial reports tell me that my highest rated players lose both potential and actual ratings like crazy. My 80 potentials become 70, my 70 potentials become 60 and my currents lose 10 points as well. It’s like my scout believes the OSA held the initial draft settings party at their local Hooters on Dollar Beer night.

Does anyone else see this? Is there a way to avoid this type of draft rating fiasco that I am not seeing?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

IIRC scouting reports are supposed to have 1 standard deviation per 10 point difference. That means that if 45 is major league average, 68% of all major league quality players should be between, say, 40 and 50, with only the top 16% getting a 55 or higher. Then in turn only about 2.5% of all major league level players should get a 65 or higher, with 1 standard deviation above that - you’re talking 1 or 2 players in the entire league at this point - at a 75 or 80. Obviously baseball doesn’t follow normal distribution - even the guys good enough to be in the majors are way down the downward slope of a classic bell curve, even in OOTP terms - but I think it’s possible to just figure out SD for players currently on a major league roster and then fit draftees, international signings, etc. into that.

I am like 99.9999999% positive that the game handles 20-80 ratings on a linear scale instead of the logarithmic (semi-logarithmic?) scale of “classic” scout ratings. It’s waaaaay easier to code a linear scale, all the other ratings points are linear, and most people I think expect it to be linear. I have other issues with scouting, which is a big part of why I just leave ratings off/concealed, but this would be a nice add for the 3 of us who care about these things.

So I went down a giant rabbit hole with this. I already export a DB every month and so all I had to do was take that existing export, figure out the mean and standard deviation for all the ratings (well, all the ones I wanted to look at) at the major league level, and then bring in all players throughout the minors and grade them against major league standards. I did have to make a couple of concessions - lumping all fastballs, all breaking pitches, and all change-ups together, for example, so that you could get a reliable idea of how good your screwball is if you're only one of 5 guys in the league who throws it. Also, I didn't run overall fielding ratings at all but just "tools" since that's what scouts are there to grade, and in the offing there I lumped first basemen in with other IFs (I might leave them out when compiling the league-level means and standard deviations in the future).

By the early looks, basing things on standard deviations instead of straight-up linearity seems to work OK. There are instances where it's impossible to be more than 2 standard deviations below the norm - for example, I grouped all fastballs, all breaking pitches, and all change-ups together and I think changes had a mean value of 105 in the bigs with a standard deviation of like 55 (and I did run it by "how many standard deviations are you from the mean" and not "the 83rd percentile is 1 standard deviation up, the 98th is 2, etc."), but it's still workable... major league ready guys have, like, 45s and 50s in contact and power and guys who should destroy the league have like 65s or occasionally 70s. And conversely, there are more 20/80 guys of course than 80/80 guys - the latter are all but non-existent, as they should be - but a guy who's got a 20 contact is just straight up a guy who will never be able to hit in the league. Overall, there's a lot more clumping up, especially in the majors, in the 40-50 range. which is kind of as it should be.

It's also really mathy and, like I said, I don't think is at all what players new to the game would expect when they see 20-80 scale (I think people expect a Madden style setup where you just, you know, see the ratings, and a 20/80 is basically just the base 1-200 divided by 2.5 or however the math works).