UPDATE 2: OOTP 26 Public Beta Patch: 26.4.61

[omg_pwnasaurus]

Originally Posted by shakturi101

Just want to confirm that if I play on my save in the beta this weekend, that all my progress will transfer over to my save once 26.4.59 goes live. Seems like that is the case, just want to confirm.

I don't want to speak for the devs, but IIRC Matt usually posts a "requires new save" or something along those lines for any changes that won't handle an existing save I think. Cheers.

Edit: My bad I think I read your question wrong, I've never used a beta patch before as I usually wait but I imagine the progress done using the beta will be carried over when it goes live for however you consume the patch

[Matt Arnold]

The patch should be compatible, no worries.

As for development, in real life lots of players never reach their potential. I'm sure we'll take some more passes through, and might have more tweaks. But not every patch can immediately hit every issue, obviously.

[Larryk007]

I got BLUE faces in last night's 3D game with Seattle.

[highandoutside]

no message

[dodgerball]

Wanted to confirm that the current beta patch has led to all of the players on offense (either at bat or on the basepaths) to have face colors that are the same as the batting helmet. This is on the 3D models not the 2D images. No proper face gen is created. All of the players on defense have their faces generated correctly. Hope this can be fixed easily on the final patch.

[Eddie2003prt]

downloaded patch 4.60

installed it.

when I went in game, at the main menu I got a patch installation failed: facegen photofit file did not unzip.

Redownloaded patch 4.60

installed it.

No popup when i went into game.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Matt Arnold

Changelist 26.4.59

• Updated Pre-Calculated Modifiers
  

The update is great on most items. Thank you for acting on my observations of the very poor performance or the old pre-calc file.

The only problem now is SB attempts are way too high. 10% or more higher. All in the red.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by Brad K

The update is great on most items. Thank you for acting on my observations of the very poor performance or the old pre-calc file.

The only problem now is SB attempts are way too high. 10% or more higher. All in the red.

Turn off coaching. It's an variable that should not be there in a test and if on would tend to make SB attempts high.

[Boom Boom]

Why is the Mac Version downloading so slow? The mirror doesn't even work.

Checked my internet speeds.
Download Mbps
397.67
Upload Mbps
297.60

[Boom Boom]

Originally Posted by Boom Boom

Why is the Mac Version downloading so slow? The mirror doesn't even work.

Checked my internet speeds.
Download Mbps
397.67
Upload Mbps
297.60

Seems like the issue is fixed.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by LansdowneSt

Turn off coaching. It's an variable that should not be there in a test and if on would tend to make SB attempts high.

That's a great suggestion for a quick fix. I must comment that most people play with coaching on. The tests thus should be done with coaching on and produce accurate results in a replay league. Achieving that is the only way results can be known to be acceptable in a "what if" league. It is coaching that is broken and that is what needs fixed.

A suggestion is that until coaching is fixed people using the pre-calc file issued with 26.4.59 reduce the SB attempt LTM by somewhere around 12%.

The test results that support this suggestion are in the main thread on LTM issue located HERE.

[LansdowneSt]

Originally Posted by Brad K

That's a great suggestion for a quick fix. I must comment that most people play with coaching on. The tests thus should be done with coaching on and produce accurate results in a replay league. Achieving that is the only way results can be known to be acceptable in a "what if" league. It is coaching that is broken and that is what needs fixed.

A suggestion is that until coaching is fixed people using the pre-calc file issued with 26.4.59 reduce the SB attempt LTM by somewhere around 12%.

The test results that support this suggestion are in the main thread on LTM issue located HERE.

Coaching should not be on as a default in Replay Mode selections. It's a very specialized mode.

"Replay mode is meant for players who want historical accuracy." There is always variance as ABs vary in result but, it is the mode where I believe every variable ought to be stripped out and the user should have to add things back if they like. Be it turning off line-ups but keeping transactions, adding the variable of morale and chemistry, adding storylines, whatever.

Historically accurate coaching is already baked into the results. If Billy Martin had people steal more, it's in the results of the players. Adding one huge variable, AI coaching, "just because" is wrong in my opinion. But it's Matt's game. This is just a case where I feel his decision is not final because it is right, it is right because it is final.

So, coaching isn't broken, that's just the result of adding coaching as a layered variable atop historical replay. Any time you turn on any variable like that you move away from baseline.

[Brad K]

But the point is to use replay to create a pre-calc file to be used with the other modes. And the file is bad if coaching isn't on when creating it. But coaching shouldn't have any effect at all when turned on. Only when a GM makes changes should there be an effect.

Creating the pre-calc file with coaching turned off makes it unusable for the other modes. And that's the actual purpose of the pre-calc file. To use with other modes. It's what Garlon needs for his new suggested mode of play.

[Brad K]

Anyway, I posted my results to the Diffent Perspective... thread. Please take a look.

After looking, I hope you'll agree that a file that consistently produces results over 10% high isn't acceptable.

[Lukas Berger]

As far as stuff goes, there really is not any significant issue with development here from any of our tests. Like Matt mentions, things can always be tweaked and we'll certainly take another look or two at development in the future.

That being said, what people are seeing as an issue is really just the expected results of some changes and tweaks we've made to more closely track real-life trends. This comes in three parts, I think.

First and most important, is simply the flatter distribution of stuff in modern baseball. Basically, because everyone is throwing so hard now, it's created a situation where there are fewer and fewer pitchers who stand out from the crowd in the ability to get K's at a significantly higher rate than their peers. Everyone tends to cluster very closely around the league average in K rate and K/9, and there are few fewer outliers here than there were even a few years previously.

Second, when you couple that with our moving the 20-80 scale toward a more realistic version of the scale, where the majority of players fall into the middle of the curve, with 40-60 ratings, it means a lot of pitchers end up clustering around league average with their overall ratings.

Third, we've made the change to leave pitching potentials showing to later ages than in previous years, because there are increasingly more players who break out with significant improvements in their late 20's and early 30's. So we want to leave the potential for this to happen in the game, just as it does in reality. It shouldn't be the expectation, as most players do not see this sort of jump, but it is common enough that the possibility should be taken into account.

[Bobfather]

[QUOTE=Larryk007;5191101]I got BLUE faces in last night's 3D game with Seattle.[/
They're holding their breath till they get their way. Check the mood screen. (This is a joke.)

[Bill Veeck]

Really helpful info, Lukas. Very much appreciated. should probably post this in the new update thread today

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

That being said, what people are seeing as an issue is really just the expected results of some changes and tweaks we've made to more closely track real-life trends.

So you are saying that the only way to get the development we have seen in the past is to drastically adjust aging and development settings?

Also, if we play historicals when strikeouts were much lower then will we see higher stuff ratings on the big K pitchers?

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by rwd59

So you are saying that the only way to get the development we have seen in the past is to drastically adjust aging and development settings?

Also, if we play historicals when strikeouts were much lower then will we see higher stuff ratings on the big K pitchers?

Historicals would have a sharper distribution still, yes for guys like Feller, Ryan etc.

I'm not really sure development is so much different than in previous games, it's more that the visible ratings scale is just a little more compressed.

Changing development settings won't change that.

If you take a couple years ago, when the stuff boom was going on, things were getting a little out of control in that you'd have leagues where like 60 guys had 80 stuff ratings.

That was never really a good thing, and it was kind of deceptive as well, since you run into a situation where if too many guys have too high ratings in a given category, it really means no one has a high rating.

After all, there are only so many strikeouts available to go around, and a guy with an 80 rating in a league where there are dozens of other 80-rated stuff pitchers may actually only strike out the same amount of guys as someone with a 60 rating in a more balanced league.

The changes we've made here are to try to have guys show more their 'real' values, rather than appearing to be incredible, when they're actually maybe only a bit above average.

[Bobfather]

Thank you for the ballpark fix.