Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 26 Available - FHM 11 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 26 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Out of the Park Baseball 26 > OOTP 26 - General Discussions

OOTP 26 - General Discussions Everything about the brand new 26th Anniversary Edition of Out of the Park Baseball - officially licensed by MLB, the MLBPA, KBO and the Baseball Hall of Fame.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-23-2025, 09:29 AM   #41
Murcer
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 259
Interesting results. I may have missed it, but was development turned off for these tests? I'm just wondering if maybe the higher potential players might be developing more quickly during the season than the lower potential players resulting in better performance over the course of the year.
Murcer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 09:42 AM   #42
Tootski
Bat Boy
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 17
It looks like you found the achilles heel of the game. To be honest the game engine is the same every year with minor upgrades.

Everything is based on perfect team, because it is pay to win.

I wish the developers would have the guts to react to this post.
Tootski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 09:56 AM   #43
dishnet34
All Star Starter
 
dishnet34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by tootski View Post
everything is based on perfect team, because it is pay to win.
lmfao the game is NOT based on Perfect Team, come on man
__________________
OOTP's Official Perfect Team Hype Man / host of TWIPT Saturday Showdown and Perfect League World Series

"Find a way to be alone in a baseball stadium at sunrise, when the only sound you hear are about nine birds that got lost, and found themselves in a stadium, and they’re chirping across the grandstand trying to figure out where the f*** they ended up." -Dan Besbris
dishnet34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 10:20 AM   #44
kq76
Global Moderator
 
kq76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11,700
Huh.

I'd like to say that I appreciate that people on both sides ran tests to try to figure out what was really going on instead of just taking sides and getting angry at each other. I'll admit, after philthepat's confirming test I jumped and was already thinking, "well, that's obviously screwed up and not how it should be!", but after Garlon's and jpeters's latest tests I thought, "hmm, okay, maybe it's not that bad for it to work that way".

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutS|der View Post
There should be no scenario where a 1 rating should be competing in any level over Rookie if even that, I'd put them more in HS/College.

...
I don't really agree, only because do we ever see a 1 current rating? I mean, sure, I'd prefer if a 1/600 didn't result in this, but if it does simply because it makes the ratings that we do see work better for whatever reason, then okay, so be it.

Regardless, I find it all very interesting and I appreciate that we understand it better now. I'm glad that I don't really pay that much attention to MiL stats (I do a bit, like for deciding when to promote someone), but I'm even more glad I no longer feel like this is something we need to freak out about, just look into more.

Also, for the people who might not understand what some people are talking about with the word "floor", it means that between some range of ratings OOTP might have one formula work, but between the next range of ratings some other algorithm works. The way I learned about OOTP floors was when I looked at a spreadsheet someone (sorry, I forget who) made that "reverse engineered" how position training worked in OOTP and it clearly showed that between some range of ratings one thing happened and between another something else happened. Like, "if range < X, then do Y, otherwise do Z". You could also think of it as, instead of a straight diagonal line or curve on a graph, the line or curve suddenly changes its angle after a certain point. It might seem like a strange thing to program in, but I think it just sometimes accomplishes a certain purpose better.
kq76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 10:45 AM   #45
FlexD
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockey31 View Post
I'll just comment my two cents and minor crash out reading these comments. The fact this is a discussion topic is ridiculous, this game feels broken constantly, it has for the past few years. After a decade of playing, the past couple releases have been a massive let down, and for the worst reasons. Basic issues going unaddressed etc, it feels like another madden game. No improvement to bugs/fixes needed, weird development/regression. This is my first negative post on here ever, I'm just tired of watching this game add features that don't work, and never addressing real issues. They can't fix this basic problem, but hey we got the hall of fame tour and perfect team makes the company their money. This game has gone so downhill it's embarrassing, SGT Mushroom was right on his recent release on the present and future of OOTP. Once again, this sucks to type out as a player of 15+ years, I loved this game and looked forward to it yearly. RIP to developers caring about single player mode players, it was a good run! Mild crash out and rant apologies.
+1 Agree
FlexD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 10:57 AM   #46
whaleheader
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
How about some tests with higher, more realistic floors?

I just looked at the latest Standard Game player file. I don't see any player with a lower rating than 20 for Contact in the roster file. Many players have lower other ratings. No player has anything less than 20 for Contact.

The basis scenario is equivalent to figuring out how well sunscreen would work at 1000 degrees.
whaleheader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 11:02 AM   #47
whaleheader
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
I look forward to seeing more tests.

In the meantime, in the next patch the developers should prevent users from entering less than the minimum usable ranges for any player.
whaleheader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 11:11 AM   #48
AdequateRandomGaming
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Nov 2019
Posts: 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by whaleheader View Post
I look forward to seeing more tests.

In the meantime, in the next patch the developers should prevent users from entering less than the minimum usable ranges for any player.
What a terrible idea.
AdequateRandomGaming is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 11:13 AM   #49
philthepat
Moderator
 
philthepat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Dover, UK
Posts: 279
Funny you should say that.. I just did another test.

I took the best IAFA player from the 2025 class, put locked him into AAA as before. His ratings when I put him into AAA were as below.

His output:
.220/.295/.348

Which meant he had a OPS+ of 61, -1.7 WAR, wRC+ of 59

The other interesting thing was that there was almost zero development for him at all 12 months later. His ratings stayed almost exactly the same, both current and potential. As I said, this was the 'best' player it was possible to sign at that 16-17 range for the IAFA.
Attached Images
Image 
philthepat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 11:31 AM   #50
WhiskyTango
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Mar 2025
Posts: 221
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
Odd, by now I would've expected the requisite objections to small sample size. In the past, tests involving a single instance would typically be shrugged at but carry on.
WhiskyTango is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 11:39 AM   #51
jpeters1734
Hall Of Famer
 
jpeters1734's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Juust a bit outside...
Posts: 6,119
There seems to be some confusion that different people’s tests are producing different results, but that’s not really the case. The results are actually remarkably consistent:

- Players with 1 current / high potential (e.g., 500–600) perform way better than they should in AAA.
- Players with 1 current / 1 potential get obliterated, as expected.
- Players with 1 current / moderate potential fall somewhere in between.
- The same 1/600 player performs terribly in MLB.

This confirms the key point: potential ratings are overly influencing statistical output in the minors, but not in the majors.

That’s the problem. Not whether the test used a real draft class. Not whether the scenario is “realistic.” The tests isolate the engine behavior and the behavior is broken.
__________________
"Cannonball Coming!" Go Bucs!!

Founder and League Caretaker of the Professional Baseball Circuit, www.probaseballcircuit.com

An Un-Official Guide to Minor League Management in OOTP 21

Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

Last edited by jpeters1734; 06-23-2025 at 11:40 AM.
jpeters1734 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 11:51 AM   #52
Lukas Berger
OOTP Developments
 
Lukas Berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 21,255
I don't think running a test with parameters that would never naturally occur in-game provides any particularly useful information.

Given that the game would never create a player with a 1 current rating and a 550 potential, this is basically just testing whether entering extreme values manually can break the engine, which I don't think anyone should be surprised that it can.
__________________

lukas@ootpdevelopments.com

PreOrder Out of the Park Baseball 26!

Need to upload files for us to check out? Instructions can be found here
Lukas Berger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:00 PM   #53
Lukas Berger
OOTP Developments
 
Lukas Berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 21,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tootski View Post
It looks like you found the achilles heel of the game. To be honest the game engine is the same every year with minor upgrades.

Everything is based on perfect team, because it is pay to win.

I wish the developers would have the guts to react to this post.
The game engine is not even remotely the same each year.

The whole reason for some of the complaints in the thread is that we've actually made major changes to the game engine in the last few versions to make the engine more expansive and more realistic in areas like expanding out the whole behind the scenes ratings scale to 600 (which was responsible for some of the hiccups around development and some other engine areas the last year or two, which caused some frustration).

Those sort of changes can be frustrating, because while they provide a much more realistic base to build on once fully implemented, they do have some growing pains while we're implementing them and making needed tweaks and balances.

We make these changes because we really do love the game and want it to continue to expand and improve and more accurately simulate real baseball at all levels.

So if we were just sitting back and doing nothing, you wouldn't see so many complaints, because things would just work how they always have. Improving things though means sometimes taking a step back to take two steps forward.
__________________

lukas@ootpdevelopments.com

PreOrder Out of the Park Baseball 26!

Need to upload files for us to check out? Instructions can be found here
Lukas Berger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:04 PM   #54
whaleheader
Minors (Triple A)
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Berger View Post
I don't think running a test with parameters that would never naturally occur in-game provides any particularly useful information.

Given that the game would never create a player with a 1 current rating and a 550 potential, this is basically just testing whether entering extreme values manually can break the engine, which I don't think anyone should be surprised that it can.
This wouldn't happen in the game naturally, and there is no scenario where anything remotely close to this would ever happen in real life.

The closet real-life scenario was the Royals' Baseball Academy in the 1970s. Even then, no player would have 600+ potential and 1 current ability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas...seball_Academy
whaleheader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:10 PM   #55
Lukas Berger
OOTP Developments
 
Lukas Berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 21,255
The basic principle here though, that two players with equal current ratings and greatly divergent potential ratings, that the guy with the very high potential ratings would get a slight bump to current performance, I think generally makes sense.

In real-life, top prospects do not normally put up .150/.180/.220 lines anywhere, whereas lesser players might, even if in theory both should have somewhat similar current ratings (by default of being assigned to the same level, or by the lesser prospect even being significantly older than the top prospect).
__________________

lukas@ootpdevelopments.com

PreOrder Out of the Park Baseball 26!

Need to upload files for us to check out? Instructions can be found here
Lukas Berger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:16 PM   #56
jpeters1734
Hall Of Famer
 
jpeters1734's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Juust a bit outside...
Posts: 6,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by whaleheader View Post
How about some tests with higher, more realistic floors?

I just looked at the latest Standard Game player file. I don't see any player with a lower rating than 20 for Contact in the roster file. Many players have lower other ratings. No player has anything less than 20 for Contact.

The basis scenario is equivalent to figuring out how well sunscreen would work at 1000 degrees.
That’s exactly the point and I’m glad you brought it up.

If no player in the standard roster file has Contact lower than 20, and I create a player with 1 Contact, then by your logic, he should be completely nonfunctional, right?

But he’s not. He’s hitting .260+ in Triple-A.

So ask yourself: if a player that far below the realistic floor is still producing in AAA, what would happen if I gave him “realistic” rookie-level current ratings insteadsay, Contact in the 25–35 range?

Answer: he’d still look ML-ready in a month, going off of stats. That’s the problem.

That’s not realism. That’s a mechanical flaw

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Berger View Post
I don't think running a test with parameters that would never naturally occur in-game provides any particularly useful information.

Given that the game would never create a player with a 1 current rating and a 550 potential, this is basically just testing whether entering extreme values manually can break the engine, which I don't think anyone should be surprised that it can.
That’s not a valid dismissal, Lukas.

The point of using extreme values is to isolate a mechanic and make its behavior obvious. That is standard testing logic. Just because the game does not normally create a 1 current, 600 potential player does not mean the result is meaningless. It actually confirms that something is fundamentally wrong with how the engine handles potential in minor league simulations.

Consider this additional test. I simmed a season in a standard MLB game, turned off scouting, and found the highest rated international signing. I gave him average rating relative to rookie ball and then locked him to AAA.

He still had a 102 OPS+... come on
Attached Images
Image Image 
__________________
"Cannonball Coming!" Go Bucs!!

Founder and League Caretaker of the Professional Baseball Circuit, www.probaseballcircuit.com

An Un-Official Guide to Minor League Management in OOTP 21

Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet
jpeters1734 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:24 PM   #57
jpeters1734
Hall Of Famer
 
jpeters1734's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Juust a bit outside...
Posts: 6,119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas Berger View Post
In real-life, top prospects do not normally put up .150/.180/.220 lines anywhere, whereas lesser players might, even if in theory both should have somewhat similar current ratings (by default of being assigned to the same level, or by the lesser prospect even being significantly older than the top prospect).
That’s a disingenuous response.

Top prospects perform better in real life because they have better current ability and are placed at appropriate levels. Not because of some abstract “future potential” force-field. If I take a player in OOTP who objectively has zero functional skill, like someone who should be buried in rookie ball, and he performs in AAA just because he has high potential, that’s a design flaw. Full stop.

You’re trying to reverse-engineer the outcome to justify the mechanic, but it doesn’t hold up. If a player with no actual ability is producing because of future projection, then the game is simulating fantasy, not baseball.

This completely breaks the purpose of minor league stats. You can’t use them to judge readiness, evaluate talent, or make informed decisions because the numbers aren’t reflecting actual skill.
__________________
"Cannonball Coming!" Go Bucs!!

Founder and League Caretaker of the Professional Baseball Circuit, www.probaseballcircuit.com

An Un-Official Guide to Minor League Management in OOTP 21

Ratings Scale Conversion Cross-Reference Cheat Sheet

Last edited by jpeters1734; 06-23-2025 at 12:28 PM.
jpeters1734 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:37 PM   #58
kq76
Global Moderator
 
kq76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 11,700
jpeters, stop and take a breath. I think you know I'm more than willing to agree with you when I think you're right. But I really think you're wrong here, at least about all your 1 current rating tests. You're familiar with the concept of garbage in, garbage out, right? Well, you're feeding the sim straight garbage and you're expecting something different. It's just not reasonable. Please, go back to my earlier post and re-read the part about floors. We just can't expect the game to give us any meaningful data if we feed it something the devs wouldn't expect it would ever have to deal with. Sure, it'd be nice if it worked the way we expect it to if we fed it extremes, but that's just not how engines often work. They only work for the ranges of inputs we program them for.
kq76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:40 PM   #59
Lukas Berger
OOTP Developments
 
Lukas Berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 21,255
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeters1734 View Post
The point of using extreme values is to isolate a mechanic and make its behavior obvious. That is standard testing logic. Just because the game does not normally create a 1 current, 600 potential player does not mean the result is meaningless. It actually confirms that something is fundamentally wrong with how the engine handles potential in minor league simulations.

Consider this additional test. I simmed a season in a standard MLB game, turned off scouting, and found the highest rated international signing. I gave him average rating relative to rookie ball and then locked him to AAA.

He still had a 102 OPS+... come on
The thing is, you're literally just breaking the engine here. Obviously doing so says something about the mechanics where you're breaking things, but it doesn't mean the game itself is broken or justify such a sky is falling sort of response.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jpeters1734 View Post
Top prospects perform better in real life because they have better current ability and are placed at appropriate levels. Not because of some abstract “future potential” force-field. If I take a player in OOTP who objectively has zero functional skill, like someone who should be buried in rookie ball, and he performs in AAA just because he has high potential, that’s a design flaw. Full stop.

You’re trying to reverse-engineer the outcome to justify the mechanic, but it doesn’t hold up. If a player with no actual ability is producing because of future projection, then the game is simulating fantasy, not baseball.

This completely breaks the purpose of minor league stats. You can’t use them to judge readiness, evaluate talent, or make informed decisions because the numbers aren’t reflecting actual skill.
The question of whether top prospects should get a slight boost to current performance is a valid one to debate given that they do in fact perform better in general in reality.

Your contention that this is because of their current skills solely is certainly valid, but is also not the only possible explanation, as even MLB scouts and personnel would likely debate the exact role of skills versus tools here, where a top player can get by on raw physical ability at lower levels, but get exposed once reaching MLB.

I think we're certainly open to hearing your opinion on that and you surely know from experience we are willing to change things where needed, if the consensus is that there is a genuine problem.
__________________

lukas@ootpdevelopments.com

PreOrder Out of the Park Baseball 26!

Need to upload files for us to check out? Instructions can be found here
Lukas Berger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2025, 12:42 PM   #60
Lukas Berger
OOTP Developments
 
Lukas Berger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 21,255
As far as the purpose of minor league stats though, I think you're trying to use these for something that even real life minor league stats cannot be solely used for, to gauge MLB readiness.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of players, including many top prospects who put up awesome MiLB stats, but then never turned out to be ready for MLB.

Their minor league stats really told you nothing about them, because they could never replicate them in MLB.

That's where the term 'AAAA player' comes from. Also the term 'scouting the stat line'. These sort of guys exist in large numbers in real life, and they generally tend to be top or at least well regarded prospects.
__________________

lukas@ootpdevelopments.com

PreOrder Out of the Park Baseball 26!

Need to upload files for us to check out? Instructions can be found here
Lukas Berger is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 PM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2024 Out of the Park Developments