OOTP 24 public beta patch (version 24.4.61) available! (May 11, 2023)

[Matt Arnold]

There's also a difference in philosophy, where we tend to report potential ratings more towards a player's top end talent, rather than their "expected" ratings. Like on Fangraphs, they only have 1 player ranked a 55 in the upcoming draft, and 4 players at 50. If our draft classes were like that, where you only have about 3 guys with "average" or thereabouts overalls, people would complain.

Even on prospect lists, the top prospects in the game are listed at about a 65. Franco was higher, but he basically came up as a generational talent. When you compress the ratings, it's hard to rank guys.

Also a big factor is on the lower end of the spectrum, it's hard to have enough space to give different ratings for players all the way down to rookie ball and the complex leagues if you don't push the "Average" up as high as you can. I'm sure sure sometime in the future we'll expand out to give more space to everything. But right now we try to balance all the factors.

[Marinersfan51]

Originally Posted by renojedi

This was also a problem when rating were 1-10 or 1-100. One to 10 was too precise, 1-100 was better because it was more like a range, etc.

People still complained that player x had 80 power but a better player (in their eyes) had a 75.

Then we went to 20-80 for realism when it is now not really a 20-80 (just found that out actually). Same arguments if you look at the MLB rosters thread in bug reports.

I would prefer that it use real 20-80 and we all normalize to what you are talking about. Of course, not sure that can happen due to what I wrote above.

Yeah, I am sure there would be plenty of people furious if their team's top prospect was a 55 FV even if that aligned with the actual evaluations or that their perennial All-Star is a 60 PV. Fans like to be told everyone is great, just look at the ratings bloat in Madden, 2k, or MLB the Show.

[dodgerblue88]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I would argue most draft classes are actually headlined by one to three 65 rated players, followed by about 3-5 60 rated players. 55 is still first round worthy…but there’s probably about a dozen or so players rated this high. So yes, 50 is still a very good grade, as is a 45.

The fact that OOTP refuses to mirror this basically would make me want to just disable overall and potential ratings.

Couldn't this be reasonably accomplishment by just setting all PCM's to say, .750 across the board?

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by dodgerblue88

Couldn't this be reasonably accomplishment by just setting all PCM's to say, .750 across the board?

I think the point here is that the issue isn’t with the actual ratings, it’s in the way the 20-80 scouting system works. I would also prefer it to be based on standard deviations (or at least the percentile equivalent) but I also think Matt is correct that a draft board with only some very rare 70s in it and 50-55 guys at the end of the first round would be a draft board people would complain about, even if that’s more realistic in OOTP terms. I’m also personally not all that interested in the complaints that this system would also very often devolve into one with like 3-4 ratings levels with a bunch of outliers but again, people would have to be retrained on that (and even in here 20-80 is being brought up as a system some use because it’s more granular than 1-10 ratings).

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by dodgerblue88

Couldn't this be reasonably accomplishment by just setting all PCM's to say, .750 across the board?

Then you'd basically be creating MLB players with AA level true ratings and that would create some issues, not to mention smushing things between MLB and the minors even more.

[Lukas Berger]

We've posted one more update to the public beta (links in the first post).

Please test this out today as if all goes well we'll push this to an official patch tomorrow (given the changes here are minor and the other public beta patches have looked good).

Thanks!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

There's also a difference in philosophy, where we tend to report potential ratings more towards a player's top end talent, rather than their "expected" ratings. Like on Fangraphs, they only have 1 player ranked a 55 in the upcoming draft, and 4 players at 50. If our draft classes were like that, where you only have about 3 guys with "average" or thereabouts overalls, people would complain.

Even on prospect lists, the top prospects in the game are listed at about a 65. Franco was higher, but he basically came up as a generational talent. When you compress the ratings, it's hard to rank guys.

Also a big factor is on the lower end of the spectrum, it's hard to have enough space to give different ratings for players all the way down to rookie ball and the complex leagues if you don't push the "Average" up as high as you can. I'm sure sure sometime in the future we'll expand out to give more space to everything. But right now we try to balance all the factors.

Is there anyway to perhaps use a smaller scale for overall and potentials? Perhaps a 20-80 scale with only deviations of ten? So I’m essence you could have a 2-8 scale for overall and potential ratings? It would help a bit with some more fog of war, and also maybe at least mask some of what is being discussed in this thread. Obviously a lot of players would be rated as a “5l”, but it would help mirror the actual scale a bit better, as you (like an actual GM) would need to decide what types of players you would want even if many of them are graded as average.

[TBird]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

Please test this out today as if all goes well we'll push this to an official patch tomorrow (given the changes here are minor and the other public beta patches have looked good).

I respectfully disagree about the patches looking good. The historical rosters still have a major issue with many players having major league contracts at $0 salary. This might not be a problem with single season replays, but it is a major problem for anyone attempting career play. FYI - I left a post about this (and a couple of other issues) in the bug report section this morning.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Is there anyway to perhaps use a smaller scale for overall and potentials? Perhaps a 20-80 scale with only deviations of ten? So I’m essence you could have a 2-8 scale for overall and potential ratings? It would help a bit with some more fog of war, and also maybe at least mask some of what is being discussed in this thread. Obviously a lot of players would be rated as a “5l”, but it would help mirror the actual scale a bit better, as you (like an actual GM) would need to decide what types of players you would want even if many of them are graded as average.

2-8 already exists, doesn’t it?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by TBird

I respectfully disagree about the patches looking good. The historical rosters still have a major issue with many players having major league contracts at $0 salary. This might not be a problem with single season replays, but it is a major problem for anyone attempting career play. FYI - I left a post about this (and a couple of other issues) in the bug report section this morning.

I'll reply more specifically to your post in the bug reports forums, but when I say it's looking good, I do not mean there are absolutely no bugs left in the game. Just that the fixes that are in the patch seem to be working properly and seem not to have introduced any major side effects.

We can't wait to release a patch until every single reported bug is resolved, otherwise we'd never be able to fix anything.

For sure we'll still keep working on things like outstanding db fixes and other bugs that we may not have gotten to yet in future patches.

[CBLCardinals]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Is there anyway to perhaps use a smaller scale for overall and potentials? Perhaps a 20-80 scale with only deviations of ten? So I’m essence you could have a 2-8 scale for overall and potential ratings? It would help a bit with some more fog of war, and also maybe at least mask some of what is being discussed in this thread. Obviously a lot of players would be rated as a “5l”, but it would help mirror the actual scale a bit better, as you (like an actual GM) would need to decide what types of players you would want even if many of them are graded as average.

PSU and other peeps - One way you can go..... outside of any roster editing I've done for roster sets, I just turn off the "overall" rating/potentials for my personal leagues.

I also have ratings off, except for defense and speed. I also have potentials only on for the batting or pitcher ratings.

I then let the players performance and talents lead to my decision making, versus just a generic overall rating.

Just a suggestion if anyone wants to try it!

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by Syd Thrift

2-8 already exists, doesn’t it?

no, not for the overall & potential overall ratings.


EDIT: So basically as it is currently, the user has three choices for overall and potential overall ratings. (stars, 20-80, 20-80 increments of 5). What I am proposing, is adding another option here, which would be 20-80 increments of 10.

[mattsamuelw]

Lukas & Matt - Just downloaded the 3rd Beta and arbitration issue is fixed. Tested it out on multiple teams. players and files. Just has to be for $1 less than the arbitration estimate on the player for teams over budget. Looks good to put out the full patch to me. Obviously still some minor things like the IFA pool money not changing when changed in settings and the complete transaction history page not showing all teams for online leagues, but that's minor things in my eyes and things for future patches, not this one. Thank you so much for working on those things! We really appreciate it! And really look forward to the full patch coming out so we can start our online leagues back up again.

[dasultant]

I think there might be a huge trading bug introduced in beta .60 or .61, it was fine in .59, but now I'm getting at least a trade proposal a day from the AI right after playoffs. I have settings at "Trade Frequency = Low" at average it was even more constant.

[Swiffle]

Even on Trade Frequency Low, trades seem prevalent in July, and a very high number are occurring in the offseason, as soon as the playoffs end. World series ends, and a bunch of teams are instantly wheeling and dealing. I was mainly testing build 52, 59, 60 in 2023, so someone's comment about the AI working with roster's it was given, rather than ones it had built does apply, but it's still a bit crazy I think.

Personally, I was planning on running Low Trades during season, probably starting on opening day? Then switch to Almost Never during offseason. I just did 2023 offseason, and it still seemed pretty active looking at the trade log. Will retest in future years and see if offseason trading is still crazy active though and adjust accordingly.

[byzeil]

Originally Posted by CBLCardinals

PSU and other peeps - One way you can go..... outside of any roster editing I've done for roster sets, I just turn off the "overall" rating/potentials for my personal leagues.

I also have ratings off, except for defense and speed. I also have potentials only on for the batting or pitcher ratings.

I then let the players performance and talents lead to my decision making, versus just a generic overall rating.

Just a suggestion if anyone wants to try it!

This is almost what we do in our online league. We don't show current ratings (other than defense, baserunning, etc) but show potentials. We do have overall ratings on. I personally use it for basic sorting comparing one player to another but not necessarily how good a player is. I faced resistance to turning the overalls off because it is an easy way to rank players. What I have had trouble doing is getting people to understand that there may be some 4.0 star players left in the FA pool after opening day but if you dig into these players they aren't actually as good as GMs think 4 star players should be. There is a basic misunderstanding of what those overall ratings mean and I recommend to our GMs to not use them to judge whether a player is an all-star caliber player or not. Rating Star =/ All-Star

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by dasultant

I think there might be a huge trading bug introduced in beta .60 or .61, it was fine in .59, but now I'm getting at least a trade proposal a day from the AI right after playoffs. I have settings at "Trade Frequency = Low" at average it was even more constant.

Originally Posted by Swiffle

Even on Trade Frequency Low, trades seem prevalent in July, and a very high number are occurring in the offseason, as soon as the playoffs end. World series ends, and a bunch of teams are instantly wheeling and dealing. I was mainly testing build 52, 59, 60 in 2023, so someone's comment about the AI working with roster's it was given, rather than ones it had built does apply, but it's still a bit crazy I think.

Personally, I was planning on running Low Trades during season, probably starting on opening day? Then switch to Almost Never during offseason. I just did 2023 offseason, and it still seemed pretty active looking at the trade log. Will retest in future years and see if offseason trading is still crazy active though and adjust accordingly.

Thanks. We'll definitely take a look at this more for the next patch, but at least for now it looks like things are still probably a bit better at these points in time (or at least not worse) than on the last public patch, and I think at this point we'll want to get all the fixes in this one out to people.

The next patch should come much sooner than this one btw.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by mattsamuelw

Lukas & Matt - Just downloaded the 3rd Beta and arbitration issue is fixed. Tested it out on multiple teams. players and files. Just has to be for $1 less than the arbitration estimate on the player for teams over budget. Looks good to put out the full patch to me. Obviously still some minor things like the IFA pool money not changing when changed in settings and the complete transaction history page not showing all teams for online leagues, but that's minor things in my eyes and things for future patches, not this one. Thank you so much for working on those things! We really appreciate it! And really look forward to the full patch coming out so we can start our online leagues back up again.

Thanks for the feedback, and all your help getting us the info to sort this out much appreciated! Glad things are looking good for you folks now.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Patch is live!

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=347017