All the "this doesn't work" and "that doesn't work" threads

[pilight]

I didn't sign up to playtest because I had no intention of buying the game. OOTP13 did what I wanted and worked fine. Just recently, however, I got the "can't contact Esellerate" error which is apparently irresolvable. So I bit the bullet and bought the new game. I guess it will do until OOTP37, assuming the nonsense with staff extensions in non-financial leagues gets resolved.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by Brad K

All of you posting threads as described, instead of buying the game for list price then posting all these threads about what doesn't work, why don't you just volunteer to be play testers during the winter? If you did that maybe people wouldn't be buying what is still a beta version on the release date.

How many testers do you have currently? Sign me up for 26. I will not buy 25 til all the bugs and kinks are worked out. I have bought 6 versions since 12 either in presale or release day. The rest I have waited, usually until the ASG sale. the last 3 versions have been buggy until then.

[Garlon]

If you are still playing older versions of OOTP you are really missing out, especially for historical games.

The new scale, new pBABIP ratings, new modifiers, and new defensive ratings have taken things to another level with this edition.

[wb31959]

Love the jokes. We love the game, and glad most don't take the issues that arise too seriously. Thanks for the game, Marcus et al., and all those who work to improve it through their love of the game too.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

If you are still playing older versions of OOTP you are really missing out, especially for historical games.

The new scale, new pBABIP ratings, new modifiers, and new defensive ratings have taken things to another level with this edition.

I'm not excited about more LTMs. All that shows is that ratings from historical statistics run in a historical environment still can't produce historical output.

I much prefer Matt's explanation that LTMs have much less effect than in the past.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Starting with OOTP12, I have purchased every version simply to run tests. I start testing the minute I get the game and do so for 22 to 23 hours every single day. The game is getting better every year and I really think by OOTP36 or 40, I should be able to finally begin my career as the gm of the Detroit Tigers.

That's really good. Some people don't even have a target date to start their career as a GM.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Brad K

I'm not excited about more LTMs. All that shows is that ratings from historical statistics run in a historical environment still can't produce historical output.

I much prefer Matt's explanation that LTMs have much less effect than in the past.

They should have put LTM's under the hood and never mentioned them or given them as an option. Let autocalc run under the hood on opening days and let the game move on. Sure you'd lose the option to customize any way you want, but if it was never known nobody would know the difference.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Sweed

They should have put LTM's under the hood and never mentioned them or given them as an option. Let autocalc run under the hood on opening days and let the game move on. Sure you'd lose the option to customize any way you want, but if it was never known nobody would know the difference.

How do you figure no one would know? It's evident something is amiss every time someone has a league where talent doesn't match historical.

LTMs are great for testers of pure historical scenarios. Not so great for anyone who wants an alternate history. And that is what most "historical" players are doing. A plausible variation on history.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

How do you figure no one would know? It's evident something is amiss every time someone has a league where talent doesn't match historical.

LTMs are great for testers of pure historical scenarios. Not so great for anyone who wants an alternate history. And that is what most "historical" players are doing. A plausible variation on history.

Can you explain why OOTP isn't so great for anyone that wants an alternate history?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

Can you explain why OOTP isn't so great for anyone that wants an alternate history?

Regardless of the talent in the league the LTMs require league output match historical. So if a league has more good HR hitters than historical, or more good SB guys than historical, or more really good SPs than normal, realistic individual performances are sacrificed so that the league totals match historical.

How many times has Matt or Garlon said something like if you had 8 Ruths in 1927 they'd each probably hit 10 HRs? There's a new player posting to the 24 forum who is experiencing historical good SB players not doing well.

[Garlon]

We have gone over this territory previously. You can turn off the automatic recalculation of modifiers and load the modifiers directly from the premade file and create the version of the league that you are describing.

As sweet says though, if the modifiers are under the hood you would never know they were there. They are just modifying the dice rolls to work in tandem with the billions of ways you can set up your league.

I do not play strict replays and just recently finished a game from 1871-2023 and the results are phenomenal on both for league rates and player results. Even extreme players like Warren Spahn and Mariano Rivera are turning out with perfect rate stats compared to their real values.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Garlon

We have gone over this territory previously. You can turn off the automatic recalculation of modifiers and load the modifiers directly from the premade file and create the version of the league that you are describing.

As sweet says though, if the modifiers are under the hood you would never know they were there. They are just modifying the dice rolls to work in tandem with the billions of ways you can set up your league.

I do not play strict replays and just recently finished a game from 1871-2023 and the results are phenomenal on both for league rates and player results. Even extreme players like Warren Spahn and Mariano Rivera are turning out with perfect rate stats compared to their real values.

Did you use retire and miss seasons according to history?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

We have gone over this territory previously. You can turn off the automatic recalculation of modifiers and load the modifiers directly from the premade file and create the version of the league that you are describing.

As sweet says though, if the modifiers are under the hood you would never know they were there. They are just modifying the dice rolls to work in tandem with the billions of ways you can set up your league.

I do not play strict replays and just recently finished a game from 1871-2023 and the results are phenomenal on both for league rates and player results. Even extreme players like Warren Spahn and Mariano Rivera are turning out with perfect rate stats compared to their real values.

You're right, we've been over this area before. If I was wrong you wouldn't tell people to set retire according to history to yes. It I was wrong you wouldn't observe that if you have several Ruth caliber players in a 1927 league they'd all hit maybe 10 HRs. I could go on with other examples but there's no point.

Now just drop it. Like you did in the thread about a stats only update. Whether you drop it early or late you're doing to drop it.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

I do not play strict replays and just recently finished a game from 1871-2023 and the results are phenomenal on both for league rates and player results. Even extreme players like Warren Spahn and Mariano Rivera are turning out with perfect rate stats compared to their real values.

How did you do that? Negate randomness?

Your allegation defies when the devs have said about the game and what most players have experienced.

And who would want to play a game where player's performance is so predictable?

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

We have gone over this territory previously. You can turn off the automatic recalculation of modifiers and load the modifiers directly from the premade file and create the version of the league that you are describing.

The game uses auto calc because the game can't produce realistic results from the ratings on a dead historical league. But you're saying if you change the talent and leave off auto calc then the game will produce realistic results. If true it would follow that leaving auto calc off would produce realistic results with exact historical talent. But it doesn't.

What is your agenda here? There must be one. No one could argue in the face of reality without an agenda.

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Brad K

You're right, we've been over this area before. If I was wrong you wouldn't tell people to set retire according to history to yes. It I was wrong you wouldn't observe that if you have several Ruth caliber players in a 1927 league they'd all hit maybe 10 HRs. I could go on with other examples but there's no point.

Now just drop it. Like you did in the thread about a stats only update. Whether you drop it early or late you're doing to drop it.

To be honest, historical isn't really historical once you start letting guys play seasons they didn't in real life. Shoeless Joe playing the 1921 season is fictional. Sandy Koufax playing past the 66 season is fictional. If one was to clone Babe Ruth in 1927 and put one on each team, I agree it should not result in each Babe Ruth hitting 10 home runs. That being said, what is the solution for a game that is trying to provide a method of replicating historical seasons? Wouldn't getting things as accurate as possible in terms of true hisorical play be the most important thing?

[Garlon]

So your argument us that the game cannot produce realistic results and yet when the results are accurate the criticism is that it is too good.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Garlon

So your argument us that the game cannot produce realistic results and yet when the results are accurate the criticism is that it is too good.

People want some variation. That's why TCR exists.

People want short career players to sometimes play longer than historical.

If you have any miracles handy you should play them now.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by David Watts

To be honest, historical isn't really historical once you start letting guys play seasons they didn't in real life. Shoeless Joe playing the 1921 season is fictional. Sandy Koufax playing past the 66 season is fictional. If one was to clone Babe Ruth in 1927 and put one on each team, I agree it should not result in each Babe Ruth hitting 10 home runs. That being said, what is the solution for a game that is trying to provide a method of replicating historical seasons? Wouldn't getting things as accurate as possible in terms of true hisorical play be the most important thing?

Also, the answer for most of those situations is just don't use Auto-Calc to adjust the modifiers.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by David Watts

To be honest, historical isn't really historical once you start letting guys play seasons they didn't in real life. Shoeless Joe playing the 1921 season is fictional. Sandy Koufax playing past the 66 season is fictional. If one was to clone Babe Ruth in 1927 and put one on each team, I agree it should not result in each Babe Ruth hitting 10 home runs. That being said, what is the solution for a game that is trying to provide a method of replicating historical seasons? Wouldn't getting things as accurate as possible in terms of true hisorical play be the most important thing?

You could have both accurate true historical play and plausible alternative historical play if the ratings could produce historical output. But the ratings are defective and can't do that.

You recognize the multiple Babes hitting 10 HRs is ludicrous. Look at the guy posting about SBs in 24.

I don't know why this argument exists and why Garlon is so strongly defending LTMs. Matt said in my stat update only thread that with better ratings the effect of LTMs is reduced. It's obvious the goal is to eliminate them.

However I was told privately that Matt is lying. And Garlon said as much in the thread with his instance LTMs would always be necessary.

.