OOTP and the competition

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by rich12545

Everybody seems to be interested in different things in a baseball sim.

That is part of OOTP's strength, I think, in that it can appeal to a variety of different types of players. Of course, that diversity also causes issues since everyone has their area of interest they want to see expanded and improved. I don't envy Markus trying to walk that tightrope.

[pstrickert]

Good point, LGO. I think Markus needs someone to keep things organized, especially during beta testing. Steve B. is excellent in this capacity. However, IMHO, Steve needs to be much more involved and available than last year. I hope his schedule will permit him to.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That is part of OOTP's strength, I think, in that it can appeal to a variety of different types of players. Of course, that diversity also causes issues since everyone has their area of interest they want to see expanded and improved. I don't envy Markus trying to walk that tightrope.

Originally Posted by pstrickert

IMHO, Steve needs to be much more involved and available than last year. I hope his schedule will permit him to.

I'll reserve comment beyond adding that his involvement and availability in the forums themselves would add back a missing dimension. The vets who add their insights are always welcome, as are the newer more critical and provocative voices like OFG, The Wolf and others like him (these are productive, often divisive, but critical elements to growth. Go ahead, call me Obama ), but perhaps, with the exception of 1998 Yankees, no one has really stepped up to that MVP status or Rookie of the Year status, setting the bar with the impetus only his personality, at the time, could have provided.

As goes OOTP, competition, and focus, I'll respond to LGO's comment and yours quoting RonCo from a while back. While RonCo and I may have core philosophical differences about how the game achieves what it does, I've bolded parts of his statement I feel contain merit for serious consideration and dialogue, along with the entirety of his post.

Originally Posted by RonCo

My opinion only, of course: I think a small, independent developer like Markus needs to focus on quality and establishing a firm market. If you look around at the competitors--and there are a _lot_ more than you might think--you'll see that most of them can make a strong argument for having "the best historically accurate simulations" for real baseball universes. They are also bleeding into the area that differentiates OOTP: the ability to be a GM and interact with other GMs online. The phrase "head-to-head" also rises up on occasion.

At question, really, is "what does OOTP do that differentiates it from the rest of the pack?" I argue that fictional, career progression is the answer. Given this opinion, it's really no surprise to me that the recent poll showed that just over 60% of OOTP users preferred fictional players, and that the historical players were 3/5 on modern day vs. past history. Realize this means you have really three different groups--60% fictional, 25% historical, 15% modern.

The basic structure of OOTP was designed before sabermetric studies started showing folks how the game of baseball actually works, and while Markus has done a yoeman's job of mushing things to make the game fit some of those learnings I think there is very little question that any modern game engine developed with these philosophies from the ground up is going to be statistically more accurate in a strictly historical environment. Unless Markus decides to completely re-code his results engine OOTP will be unlikely to match some of the others.

When you run time forward 3-5 years, the question that comes up is: which of these markets will the competition be focusing on? Where will OOTP's bread-and-butter come from? How can OOTP be a market leader in a world where bigger corporate teams have begun to appear?

I quite honestly worry that the decision to continue to try to be everything to everyone is going to result in OOTP winding up being skin-deep everywhere in comparison to other products, leaving OOTP to be supported primarily by those (like folks with deep commitment to online leagues) who are already intricately intertwined in the game and unable to move on without deep impact.

Again, all this is just my .02.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by bababui

Where will they go? Trying to maintain as broad a customer base as possible seems like common sense to me.

Like politics, OOTP must make sure that people come out and purchase and not "stay home". If OOTP does not provide the game experience I am looking for, chances are I am not going to buy one of the competitors, I am just going to keep that money in my wallet. OOTP 9 did not include improvements that I found important (mostly improving the interface, improving news stories, and finally adding in the remaining missing features from OOTP 6). OOTP nor any other company got my $$ last year. Unless improvement are made in these areas, I doubt that anyone will get my $$ next year either.

I really wonder how many customers OOTP gained by adding sound vs. how many customers they lost by not spending time improving the core of the game.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by endgame

While RonCo and I may have core philosophical differences about how the game achieves what it does, I've bolded parts of his statement I feel contain merit for serious consideration and dialogue, along with the entirety of his post.

The more I think about it the more I think he was onto something in regards to the fictional/historical split, and how they really are two fundamentally different game types. The thing is, historical has been part of OOTP for some time now, and constitutes a sizeable enough portion of OOTP players, that abandoning it altogether would not seem like a feasible route. As well, having both in one product allows users to switch back and forth between the modes, an advantage that should not be overlooked. Not every OOTP user is necessarily a fictional or historical only player, some may go back and forth between the two as their interests change.

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I really wonder how many customers OOTP gained by adding sound vs. how many customers they lost by not spending time improving the core of the game.

The problem is, what exactly constitutes the "core of the game"? For those who play out games, they'd probably say the play-by-play text and in-game options are the core of the game; for the stats junkies, they'd probably say the accuracy and depth of the stats are the core of the game; those interested in the GM aspects would likely say the transaction rules and related AI are the core of the game; and so on.

I would submit there is not necessarily one core to the game, but rather several equally valid cores, all of which work together to create the final product.

[Syd Thrift]

This idea that OOTP is "skin deep" is just plain ludicrous on its face. Come on, now. The game has issues, I will admit. It's far from perfect. It's also the best career sim on the market, and it's the best career sim on the market because it is MASSIVELY deep. It's far and away the deepest baseball sim on the market. Realistically, look at the game compared to its competitors, not to a Platonic ideal of what OOTP should be. It's *miles* ahead of Baseball Mogul and the last version of Puresim, and in ways that will not be easy for Clay Dreslough or Shaun Sullivan to match. It's comparable IMO to games like AgeOD's Civil War, titles that are so impressively deep, in fact, that it's very hard for new users to understand them well enough to have fun using them.

A big part of that, ironically, is due to the guy who's calling the game skin deep. RonCo, you've spent the past couple years sitting right up against the glass of the OOTP engine, seeing all the flaws and all the ways it should be better. Those flaws definitely exist and nobody is arguing that they do not. But if you don't think the game is deep relative to anything else on the market, including Football Manager (FM has deeper player interaction, something you've, of course, rallied against, but it doesn't hold a candle to the depth of player development and the relationship of little stats that nobody but 3 people will notice that OOTP has), you're too close to see this.

Just wanted to point out a couple of these insanely little things:

- Fielding chances by position change over time according to how they changed in real life. No, seriously. A pitcher in the 1890s will take about 50% more chances per season than a guy in 2007.

- Some of the stats that the game regulates from season to season:

Sacrifice hits
How often a league steals, based on the number of times a runner is on first base (this interferes with the stealing strategy settings, but like I said, the game isn't perfect)
The percentage of double plays that are GIDPs versus lineout DPs or the strike em out throw em out variety
Outfield assists
Endurance (measured by number of outs per appearance) for both starters and relievers
Groundball percentage
Wild pitches, balks, and passed balls

- 3 1/2 megabytes worth of play by play and news story text (SOM and DMB probably have OOTP beat, but they have almost a decade on the game of users writing their text for them, so that's to be expected... nonetheless, it's a huge range of available PBP that takes a pretty good amount of time to get tired of).

[swampdragon]

There's no question that OOTP is the best career sim on the market. Certainly the in-game engine and pbp need to be better for it to match DMB for replaying a season, but Syd's absolutely right. When you compare it to Mogul or PureSim, it's not a close comparison.

Incidentally, if the game quit supporting historical play, I'd be gone. I play in one fictional league, but for solo replays, I strictly play historical.

[thbroman]

Paradoxically I want to agree with both Syd and RonCo for the following reasons. Syd is right, of course, that OOTP does more things better than any other sim out there. But I share RonCo's concern that OOTP is at a crossroads right now. It can't continue to hang onto every single segment of the market without sacrificing the willingness of long-time buyers like me to purchase it every year. That's the real problem, as I see it -- getting the same people to buy it every year. To be quite honest, I bought OOTP 9 about 80% out of loyalty to Markus. Sure, I thought the redesign of the scouting system was well done, but the package of improvements brought to the game by OOTP 9 in particular were too minimal with respect to the things I am interested in (fictional historical environments, above all) to really grab me. And truth be told, it has been that way for several editions now. Don't get me wrong: There have been a number of valuable improvements to the engine, including the player development model, the financial system, and other things to keep me going. But if the game continues down the road of more graphics and animations instead of being the superb text-based sim it has always been, I may decide to stop buying it every year. That's only one person's decision, but honestly I've got to feel there's a reason to install a new version year after year.

Originally Posted by swampdragon

There's no question that OOTP is the best career sim on the market. Certainly the in-game engine and pbp need to be better for it to match DMB for replaying a season, but Syd's absolutely right. When you compare it to Mogul or PureSim, it's not a close comparison.

Incidentally, if the game quit supporting historical play, I'd be gone. I play in one fictional league, but for solo replays, I strictly play historical.

No need to, IMHO. I agree with LGO that the game manages to keep its position in both camps. and for someone like, me, who wants to play fictional environments in specified historical periods, maintaining both is essential!

[endgame]

I don't believe there's any intention, nor should there be, of abandoning the historical element of the game. The root of RonCo's comment can be misleading or misread. The fundamental concept of the career progression, i.e. player development, along with the individual skill sets and stat collections that compose it, is identical - and should follow true and correct (read that realistically expected results within acceptable ranges - all outliers excepted) - regardless of whether the league is purely fictional from creation or whether it's modern day 'real' players who, after the course of time, in essence develop fictional careers. If it works, and works well, in the design model, it will work equally well in historical settings, with the exception of the replay-orientation of deeper history.

So it's not really a question of one over the other. It appears - at least to me - as an admonition to re-focus the focus on to the central force that drives all of these playing types: career progression, or history that builds into fictional (unknown) performance in a more consistent and improved, reliable model.

Syd, you possess an almost peerless understanding of the game and while your focus is largely historical, you maintain the ability to offer a large range of assessments that can encompass broad strokes across all of the game's arenas, often - very often - without sacrificing any credibility or integrity in your arguments. In part, that's the core of the skin-deep concept, IMHO, it's a relative comment. Of course nothing in the game is only what it appears on the surface, especially when you have the skills to see all of the real connections that function has upon all of the others. That is the essence of a critical mind searching for synthesis; foregoing consensus.

But skin-deep is, IMHO, terminology akin to the game's talent or potential. It measures its depth 'in comparison' to its possiblities, and while every element of the game might, each year, trudge along toward that potential, the overall development is slowed, with areas left wanting, because finesses and tweaks are the tools of adjustment, rather than a single focus that drives the design of improvement across the game's components you peceive much easier than others.

To borrow a poor metaphor, continuing to paint, add features, and to change the wheels, rims, and pinstripes of our vehicle isn't valueless, but if a sound in the engine keeps it parked in the garage while we all keep tearing it apart, it doesn't get much mileage. In addition, a six-passenger sedan won't well serve the dozen minds improving it. Of course, we want to preserve the quality and 'potential' of all facets and leave no one behind.

[RonCo]

My full quote was...

"When you run time forward 3-5 years, the question that comes up is: which of these markets will the competition be focusing on? Where will OOTP's bread-and-butter come from? How can OOTP be a market leader in a world where bigger corporate teams have begun to appear?

I quite honestly worry that the decision to continue to try to be everything to everyone is going to result in OOTP winding up being skin-deep everywhere in comparison to other products..."

In other words, it doesn't matter in this discussion where OOTP is today. It matters where it is relative to the competition in 3-5 years. I'm very aware of how good OOTP is, and I'm also very aware of some of the design corners Markus is painted into that will keep him from satisfying the fictional market in the long run. My point in that discussion was that the competition is getting bigger and stronger, and is developing their game at a time where more is known about how the game of baseball works. If I am correct, OOTP will very soon (if not already) look skin-deep.

And, as we've seen here...there is a LOT of competition.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just one guy.

[SandMan]

To me it appears that with every new version the game is getting to be more for the historical player, rather than fictional players. Because of the extra coding to get historical leagues to correctly simulate the era of the teams in the era, I would like to see the game split to two different games. An OOTP with all the bells and whistles for historical play and a lighter version for the fictional player. It really bothers me to see new features added to the game for historical players and then the code breaks and screws up fictional leagues as well. I am probably in the minority about having the game become two separate entities but I would welcome this change...

[Carplos]

And, as we've seen here...there is a LOT of competition.

Of course, I could be wrong. I'm just one guy.

There ISN'T a lot of competition, though. There is definitely competition is historic replays, but a lot of (OOTP) historic gamers seem interested in things other than just an exact replica of a single season.

Do any of the competitors really count as competition, in say, fictional universes?

[pstrickert]

Originally Posted by endgame

I don't believe there's any intention, nor should there be, of abandoning the historical element of the game. The root of RonCo's comment can be misleading or misread. The fundamental concept of the career progression, i.e. player development, along with the individual skill sets and stat collections that compose it, is identical - and should follow true and correct (read that realistically expected results within acceptable ranges - all outliers excepted) - regardless of whether the league is purely fictional from creation or whether it's modern day 'real' players who, after the course of time, in essence develop fictional careers. If it works, and works well, in the design model, it will work equally well in historical settings, with the exception of the replay-orientation of deeper history.

So it's not really a question of one over the other. It appears - at least to me - as an admonition to re-focus the focus on to the central force that drives all of these playing types: career progression, or history that builds into fictional (unknown) performance in a more consistent and improved, reliable model.

Syd, you possess an almost peerless understanding of the game and while your focus is largely historical, you maintain the ability to offer a large range of assessments that can encompass broad strokes across all of the game's arenas, often - very often - without sacrificing any credibility or integrity in your arguments. In part, that's the core of the skin-deep concept, IMHO, it's a relative comment. Of course nothing in the game is only what it appears on the surface, especially when you have the skills to see all of the real connections that function has upon all of the others. That is the essence of a critical mind searching for synthesis; foregoing consensus.

But skin-deep is, IMHO, terminology akin to the game's talent or potential. It measures its depth 'in comparison' to its possiblities, and while every element of the game might, each year, trudge along toward that potential, the overall development is slowed, with areas left wanting, because finesses and tweaks are the tools of adjustment, rather than a single focus that drives the design of improvement across the game's components you peceive much easier than others.

To borrow a poor metaphor, continuing to paint, add features, and to change the wheels, rims, and pinstripes of our vehicle isn't valueless, but if a sound in the engine keeps it parked in the garage while we all keep tearing it apart, it doesn't get much mileage. In addition, a six-passenger sedan won't well serve the dozen minds improving it. Of course, we want to preserve the quality and 'potential' of all facets and leave no one behind.

The day that begins with one of endgame's fine dissertations is, IMO, a good day!

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by SandMan

To me it appears that with every new version the game is getting to be more for the historical player, rather than fictional players. Because of the extra coding to get historical leagues to correctly simulate the era of the teams in the era, I would like to see the game split to two different games. An OOTP with all the bells and whistles for historical play and a lighter version for the fictional player. It really bothers me to see new features added to the game for historical players and then the code breaks and screws up fictional leagues as well. I am probably in the minority about having the game become two separate entities but I would welcome this change...

If the "fictional" universe(s) were done right, with all of the options for simulating the finances and roster rules of different eras, it would scarcely be the case that fictional leagues would be a "lite" version of the historical game! Quite to the contrary, it seems to me. But in any case, your main point may be correct about OOTP possibly evolving into two stand-alone versions. For that to happen, however, it seems to me that the core labor pool would have to grow. I don't see that happening, unfortnately.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Except that...

...are very much MLB. Not only that, but FA compensation and waiver rules (amongst many others) have varied considerably over MLB's history. So there's the question of whether OOTP should just mimic the rules which exist now or if it should allow the option of recreating the rules the way they used to be (which would definitely have an impact on historical leagues).

Folks today are used to the July 31 trade deadline and the lack of distinction between league and interleague trades, since that's how it's been since 1986.

But from 1923-1985 the trade deadline was June 15, a month and a half earlier. And from 1953-1985 interleague trades were waiver restricted, which meant that an interleague trade required the player to clear waivers inside his own league during the off-season and before the trade deadline, while after the trade deadline the player had to clear waivers in both leagues. Naturally, this restriction made interleague trades more difficult to complete, and offered a different set of challenges to the GM.

Certainly long discussions could be had on what OOTP ought to focus on and what areas could be selectively simplified...

That's nice, they're MLB. What I'm saying is, if you bothered to read my original post you'd see that, fix the bugs that are in the game now. If you're going to put waivers and FA compenstation in the game, then make it work right. I really don't care if it's MLB, Japanese, Korean, or whatever. My point is, that stuff has been in the game for some time and it doesn't work. Either make it work right, before adding more new stuff, or take it out of the game.

We can sit here for the next 50 years debating what the rules used to be, what they are now, and what they will be in the future. We can sit here for the 50 years debating what type of baseball to mirror, be it MLB, Japanese, whatever. The point is, if you're going to put something in the game, make it work right.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by SandMan

To me it appears that with every new version the game is getting to be more for the historical player, rather than fictional players. Because of the extra coding to get historical leagues to correctly simulate the era of the teams in the era, I would like to see the game split to two different games. An OOTP with all the bells and whistles for historical play and a lighter version for the fictional player. It really bothers me to see new features added to the game for historical players and then the code breaks and screws up fictional leagues as well. I am probably in the minority about having the game become two separate entities but I would welcome this change...

That's priceless that is. Stop adding features to historical Markus, you're screwing the fictional players.

[PhillieFever]

This is one of the best discussions on the board in quite some time,it's very insightful and thought provoking.

[Syd Thrift]

Originally Posted by RonCo

If I am correct, OOTP will very soon (if not already) look skin-deep.

Okay, so in what areas will OOTP look very soon (if not already) skin-deep? I think that the in-game play by play and strategy are not nearly as robust as SOM or DMB (which have had, again, a lot more time to work on getting that stuff right than Markus has, and especially in the case of SOM has had a cadre of fans demanding this a lot harder for a lot longer since it's the core focus of the game), but since I've never seen you make a comment about this part of things, I have doubts that this is what you're talking about. Where else, then?

The player development engine is, again, miles deeper than BM's or PS's, and I can say with some confidence based on prior experience that Clay Dreslough will not achieve OOTP's depth in that aspect within the next 3-5 years (or 10 for that matter). Puresim is another matter in that Shaun Sullivan seems to be the kind of guy who tries to please the grognards out there like you and me, and it's certainly easier to make up ground than it is to blaze new ground, but given the same rates of development over the last several years I would expect PS to lose ground to OOTP rather than gain it (don't get me wrong, I think Shaun is a heck of a guy and is really receptive to change but he also has too much of a social life to compete with Markus) (sorry, Markus). There's also that console GM thing coming out in the spring from Visual Concepts but historically the big companies strike out with this sort of thing. So unless you think there's somebody about to come out with a new game, I just don't see OOTP being "skin deep" within 3-5 years.

As for endgame's comments... I completely agree with you. There are lots of niggling little issues that need to get taken care of as well as some bigger ones (I go back to the in-game experience). I understand what you're getting at but I wouldn't call that "depth". I'd call that... "stability" isn't a great word because the game rarely crashes. Parts of the game do feel like they've been rigorously tested both in and out of beta, and some, well, some do not. It still kind of amazes me that nobody on the beta last year was apparently playing out games (which might even mean that Eugene and I were the only people on it doing that 2 years ago). I am not for a moment calling this a perfect title and I can certainly see a scenario in which OOTP didn't improve on this stuff and I didn't buy a new version because of that. It can be a long ways off from perfect and still be the best. I like that we're trying to push it beyond the best. We all just need to step back every so often and look at the larger picture.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

This is one of the best discussions on the board in quite some time,it's very insightful and thought provoking.

And, for once, relatively civil.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by thbroman

Paradoxically I want to agree with both Syd and RonCo for the following reasons.

It is not hard to agree with both Syd and me. I agree with Syd. OOTP today is a very competitive game and covers a large array of gamer needs.

Today.

My prediction has nothing to do with today, however, and everything to do with a time period that's further out. I predict that the companies that are just now getting into the sim-world will do a far better job of doig historial and modern day simulation (which I do view as substantially different markets) because they will design their simulation from the ground up with modern-day knowledge.

So, yeah, I agree with everything Syd said. we've got lots of things today--probably 1,000 features. But a lot of those features are what I will call skin-deep because either they've been "smudged" due to time or architecture constraints, or because they just flat out don't work (Simple things like: if i move my fences in, it doesn't change the results engine--just to pick one of many at random. These things are really pretty strange to me, but don't seem to phase many others).