Fundamental flaws... your chance to vent!

[J.HenryWaugh]

Not sure if this is the right place for this, but Markus asked for it, so I would like to see this fixed.

I am running a fictional league that started in 1903, and we started the All Star Game in 1927, our 25th anniversary. It's played out nicely every year until last season (1945), when I noticed that under the sim options, the "until All Star rosters are released" and until the a AS Game itself we not there.

After the season, I went into game setup and sure enough, the All Star game box was no longer checked. I checked the box, made sure the Auto Schedule box was also checked and moved on. I am now in June of 1946, and there STILL no All Star Game.

This happened once before, in an earlier version of my fictional league (before a game crash corrupted my files), and it took several seasons before it would show back up in the schedule.

[Dan Theman]

Just wanted to comment that this thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Thanks for this, Markus!

- someone who looks kinda funny but doesn't always work as intended

[Eugene Church]

On the BNN Broadcast screen in the pitcher's ratings section, you can hardly make out the green numbers on the black background.

You may not be able to change the color as it is part of your ratings system, but you might find a better background. Please try some other color than black.

EDIT: I was using the default skin. When I switched to the one I normally use, the blue one, it was no problem. The green showed up perfectly well.

It is still green on black, but was a very bright green.

The problem must be with the default Modern skin.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

No, it works fine. The whole point of proper development is that the average talent level of a league stays the same over the years... and the game does that perfectly. Now the question is, how do I distribute the talent drops... random or injury-related? And I feel the current distribution is just fine... if I move more towards randomness, then we'll have a whole different discussion again

A discussion which we've had before, and that was the reason it switched over from randomness to injury-based. What if you compromised? Assign half (or a third, or whatever) based on injury and the rest randomly?

Originally Posted by deadringer

I'll ask again that the overall and potential system be looked at. I still believe that when using the real life major league scales (20-80, 2-8) that the overall and potential ratings should be centered on average. IRL the whole system is based off the league average +/-. A player who is solid at defense at has a contact of 50 shouldn't be ranked the same as a kid in rookie ball who will never have a contact of over 40.

If the Major League batting average is .275 then that's where 50 should be located. Guys that are expected to hit better than that should be rated 50 or better and guys that aren't should be lower. Same goes for all the ratings.

If the rating system was loosely based on the real world scouting rating system, you would get results for overall and potential (not for specific attributes) like this:
50 = what an average major leaguer in a modern environment would expect;
45 = that hypothetical 'replacement player' whom we value so little;
40 = the minimum value for a player to get onto a 25 man roster IF all talent in the league was evenly distrubuted among clubs (specific clubs might be higher or lower);
35-45 = range for AAA players IF playing with 'full minors';
30-40 = range for AA players ";
25-30 = range for 'high A' players ";
25 = approximate value for typical 'low A' player ";
23 = approximate value for typical short season A player ";
21 = approximate value for typical 'Advanced Rookie' player ";
20 = approximate value for typical 'low Rookie' player ".

Originally Posted by RonCo

And here's what it ought look like for a team over the year (for pitchers):

Sorry, RonCo, but the development portions of that specific illustration were Greek to me. I had no idea what information you were trying to convey. The rest of that one, and all of the player-specific illustration, looked good.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by Curtis

A discussion which we've had before, and that was the reason it switched over from randomness to injury-based.

Which didn't improve things. There was never anything besides anecdotal evidence offered to support this change - 'such and such player suffered an injury and was never the same' - and it's pretty difficult to just guess what influence injuries should have. We shouldn't just be 'making it up' here.

Originally Posted by Curtis

What if you compromised? Assign half (or a third, or whatever) based on injury and the rest randomly?

What if we based it on real life data instead?

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by injury log

What if we based it on real life data instead?

My apologies for being insufficiently loquacious. When I said 'Assign half, or a third, or whatever', I should have specified that I meant 'or whatever the data indicates would be a realistic fraction'.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by RonCo

A small technicality...I think the more important point of development should be to keep the average current _ratings_ in a league fairly stable. Unless _talent_ actually influences the results engine, which I'm pretty sure it does not.

If 10 players get big talent bumps, and only two of them actually progress to any degree, then eight of those talent bumps are meaningless in context of the quality of the league.

Right?

Right. I was talking about current ratings, guess I didn't make myself clear. In OOTP 9 the current ratings are very stable through the years. The test I always run to see if development is fine is: 1) Sim 50 years, 2) Check the following things: average ratings, average age, average career length, career leader boards, individual leader boards, league average stats, draft classes (how many late rounders develop into good players)

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by mikev

Just to clarify -- this is OOTP 10 stuff you're coding?

Of course!

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Kelric

<taps heels together and wishes> Old development report, old development report, old development report...

Not gonna happen. There's nothing to report, since there are no sudden changes. So, when there's nothing to report, there's no report. Says the reporter.

[kq76]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

OK, I changed it... let's see how it works out ... 7,953 is a good number.

Hallelujah! Praise Markus! This one thing made me so mad every time I was reminded of it. I'm so thankful it's been thrown out. Now let's just hope he never brings it back.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

OK, an update.

The following things have been fixed in the meantime:
- FA compensation: There is now a supplemental round in the draft, and the compensation rules follow real life.
- Arbitration: You now submit contract amounts, and the arbitrator decides. If no offer is made, the player becomes a FA. Super-2 players are supported as well. Also, 'normal' potential free agents have to be offered arbitration as well if you want to get a compensation pick, following current MLB rules.
- The AI is now more agressive claiming players from waivers.
- Pitching prospects are valued higher now
- Improved player creation code (more utility players and position ratings make more sense now)
- Improved player development (removed player performance in the calculation if a talent change happens)
- Players are now more likely to test free agency (less extensions = better FA class)
- Improved injuries... more short-term, less long-term (I'll look into the CEI later)

That's it for now... I'll continue to keep you posted on the progress

Impressive list, but a few concerns:

-I hope the having to offer arbitration amounts will be optional. I just think that's verging on the realm of stuff many of us would rather not be bothered with. I know it's not how baseball does it, but I'd also like the option of having the judge pick the arbitration amount. Maybe you can just give us the first option, but call it the judge gets to pick option.

-While I'm pleased that short and long term injuries will be tweaked, I'd really like the ability to fully tweak the frequencies of all injuries ourselves. That, and I hope we do away with the instant CEIs as that is incredibly frustrating and unrealistic. Give us at least some hope that they can come back. As others have said, maybe the entire injury model needs to be re-worked because there's not much to like about it as it is.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Sorry, RonCo, but the development portions of that specific illustration were Greek to me. I had no idea what information you were trying to convey. The rest of that one, and all of the player-specific illustration, looked good.

The team development screen would show a line per player, with that line including that player's current ratings and the change in those ratings in the past week and past year. So you could use this screen to see development across your organization at a glance. Then, if you wanted details on a player, you would click the player and get the individual development screen--which would give you month-by-month development over the lifetime of the player.

[Kelric]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Not gonna happen. There's nothing to report, since there are no sudden changes. So, when there's nothing to report, there's no report. Says the reporter.

All of this doesn't seem to get reported in OOTP. It should be. Or if it is, I think it should be in a better format than the way OOTP currently presents it. Even without sudden changes, as you say, the new report format isn't a particularly good one.

[endgame]

I religiously use Neags23's http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...t-tracker.html, in addition to the in-game reports. Using the comparison timetables - set to my preferences, as well as rating scales - I find the utility provides almost everything I'm looking for in development information.

[cody8200]

Originally Posted by Kelric

All of this doesn't seem to get reported in OOTP. It should be. Or if it is, I think it should be in a better format than the way OOTP currently presents it. Even without sudden changes, as you say, the new report format isn't a particularly good one.

I actually really like the reports now. They give me all the information I need (who is up and who is down). I always thought the old reports were contrived. Like how could anyone possibly now the exact day that a player gets better or worse. The yearly reports work IMO.

[cody8200]

Markus, I know this was mentioned a long time ago in this thread but I wasn't sure if you have looked at it. Please, please make the hiring model for coaches better. Great coaches are far too easy to woo into accepting coaching your Rookie league team. Also, as the coaches progress, they should be able to be promoted to any team within your organization. It doesn't make a lot of sense to move a Rookie coach to the majors (the only option curreently available) but it may make sense for them to move to your Double A team.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by RonCo

The team development screen would show a line per player, with that line including that player's current ratings and the change in those ratings in the past week and past year. So you could use this screen to see development across your organization at a glance. Then, if you wanted details on a player, you would click the player and get the individual development screen--which would give you month-by-month development over the lifetime of the player.

And the green numbers mean increases and the red decreases? Okay, I understand now. Thanks!

[Elendil]

Originally Posted by Balker

How about this for a minor league DL...

If this makes it easier to code, just set it up as a level of the minors that plays no games. You can do that now, but the only addition you would need is that the AI would know to send injured minor league players there, then adjust the rest of the organization accordingly.

I'm not sure why that would be easier to code than a straight-up minor league DL?

[Eugene Church]

While creating the game recap write-up, player reports will suddenly pop up out of the blue when I click the cursor on the "Write Game Recap" screen.

I am using the 9.2.13 version.

Is this a known bug?

Sorry, I have just recently converted my league from V2007 to OOTP9 and am just now discovering a few problems. Nothing major so far.

[gord]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

OK, an update.

The following things have been fixed in the meantime:
- FA compensation: There is now a supplemental round in the draft, and the compensation rules follow real life.
- Arbitration: You now submit contract amounts, and the arbitrator decides. If no offer is made, the player becomes a FA. Super-2 players are supported as well. Also, 'normal' potential free agents have to be offered arbitration as well if you want to get a compensation pick, following current MLB rules.
- The AI is now more agressive claiming players from waivers.
- Pitching prospects are valued higher now
- Improved player creation code (more utility players and position ratings make more sense now)
- Improved player development (removed player performance in the calculation if a talent change happens)
- Players are now more likely to test free agency (less extensions = better FA class)
- Improved injuries... more short-term, less long-term (I'll look into the CEI later)

That's it for now... I'll continue to keep you posted on the progress

FA compensation! YES! Drafting and recruiting are my favorite parts of sports sims so I'm the most pumped about this.

[numbuh48]

Too many CEIs