opinion on the future of OOTP - Page 3

ihatenames · 12-18-2006, 09:40 AM

I agree 2006 is the better game. It's a little rough around the edges, but i'm confident markus will clean up the problems for 2007.

BigCity · 12-18-2006, 09:45 AM

This discussion never seems to end...

Just a few points that haven't been mentioned, yet I think are critical to understanding how to shape the future of this game.

I've been around since 2001 (Ver.3) - and I can pretty much tell you that most of the folks that played OOTP3 aren't here any longer. Now, that's NOT because version 3 was better than following versions - it's because each of us (or most of us

have lives beyond OOTP. Time changes those lives in many ways, and priorities change with it.

Any customer of ANY game evolves through a "sweet spot" in terms of his interest, his time, and what is going on in his life. People do not play a specific game "forever" since outside variables manipulate our time and interests.

Let's use me as an example.

My "sweet spot" lasted about 5 years. I had the time and the interest to be a regular part of this community, and took part in much of went on for 4 versions (3 through 6). in the 2005-6 time frame, life changed a bit, and version 2006 got significantly more detailed - just enough to force me to back away from the game a bit. I play 6.5 and 2006 at this point when I have time, and the FACT I don't have that much time is probably why I don't jump into 2006 with both feet.

Ok. That's the background - now let me get back to the subject...

IF a person has a limited "sweet spot" to get deeply involved in a game, let's compare two games - an "easy one (Version 6.5) and a "harder" one (version 2006).

A person's involvement with the "easy" game will probably last longer. Why? Because he can get "into it" easier, and the differences from version to version are "absorbable" in a short amount of time. As some here have said, they "enjoy playing" the game.

A person's involvement with the "harder" game will probably last a shorter time. Why? Because it takes more of an effort to learn, and takes more time to learn between versions if that game continues to get more complex. It's likely life will change and the person will have to re-evaluate his priorities sooner.

That being said, there are ALWAYS the few who will make playing the "game" their first priority, and there are always exceptions - but generally what I have said here is the norm.

With me, I had to drop online gaming when 2006 came out because I simply did not have the time to learn the new details of being in a 2006 league. I stayed in one 6.5 league for a while, but eventually had to give that up as well. I suspect many leagues haven't changed because the members don't want to have to increase their investment of time to make the conversion work.

Most of you will not be here (on the board) in 5 years. You will have gone off to other interests, and you will make that choice when playing the game becomes "too hard" from the standpoint of time. It would seem to me that this must be taken into consideration when "designing" the game - or deciding how "difficult" to make it.

A difficult game that takes time to learn will be used by customers for a shorter length of time before it becomes "too much" for them. An "easier" game may not fulfill all the wishes one has, but will be played for a longer period of time.

No matter how I turn that over in my head - it seems like more customers for a longer period of time results in more money to be earned.

One more thing... somewhere we have to separate being a "REAL" GM with being a GM in OOTP. Sure, we could incorporate every nuance of a GM's true day into the game, but it would take years to learn - and would be more of a "job" than a game. I think what the best of all worlds is - is a GAME that "simulates" being a GM. A game that includes all the FUN parts of being a GM without adding the mundane stuff. In a true world GM job, you have hundreds of people working for you, taking care of the details you can't get to yourself.

This is what OOTP should do.

This is why I am one who gets a bit aggravated when more and more details are stacked onto the list of requests. Details that, yes, are a part of the baseball world, but it's like putting ONE MAN in charge of what is done by HUNDREDS in a real world scenario. What happens then is you build a "game" that truly isn't a "game".

So, what am I saying in conclusion? I guess I'm saying I want OOTP to be fun. I want to get the "feeling" I'm a GM, but I don't want to make every decision that has to be made in the real world. Have the game handle some of that for me and let me get PO'd at "whoever" made that decision. Let me play the game, realizing I can't control everything, and that is also the way real life is. Let me lose a championship because "had 'I' been setting the lineups of that minor league team I could have....".

Bottom line, let me "enjoy" the game for as many years as possible before life gets in the way.

The last year, I've gone back to my "roots" in being a baseball researcher. I love the game, and I love finding out things I didn't know. I still play out my UBA league (in Version 5!) and my MLB-PCL League in 6.5, and a PONY League (Pennsylvania-Ohio-New York) in 2006. I probably put 80% of my time into the Ver5 and Ver6.6 leagues than 2006.

I'll be looking forward to 2007 like everyone else, but suspect 2007 will be "too complex" for me to either move my leagues to, or start a new one. I'll but the game, mainly becasue I want to pay Markus back for all the enjoyment I've recieved over the years - but I also suspect I'm in the minority of those who have passed their "sweet spot".

All I ask is that you think about what your asking for when it comes to complexity. Sometimes, less is more.

LeiterFanatic · 12-18-2006, 09:46 AM

As I have pointed out before, one of the best indicators of the success of the direction of OOTP is the abandonment of a large number of people from this community. Back during 4 and 5 and 6, these boards were HOPPING no matter where in the release cycle you were. I think it hit a height right before the release of OOTP2006 and now, a year later, posts remain on the first page of the board despite not having any bumps for three or four days. No matter what you think of the game, 2006 polarized the boards. FWIW, I think thats a good indicator of how things stand.

LeiterFanatic · 12-18-2006, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCity

This discussion never seems to end...

I've been around since 2001 (Ver.3) - and I can pretty much tell you that most of the folks that played OOTP3 aren't here any longer. Now, that's NOT because version 3 was better than following versions - it's because each of us (or most of us

have lives beyond OOTP. Time changes those lives in many ways, and priorities change with it.

Any customer of ANY game evolves through a "sweet spot" in terms of his interest, his time, and what is going on in his life. People do not play a specific game "forever" since outside variables manipulate our time and interests.

There are a lot of people who went thru that "sweet spot" at the same time, then.

canadiancreed · 12-18-2006, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeiterFanatic

As I have pointed out before, one of the best indicators of the success of the direction of OOTP is the abandonment of a large number of people from this community. Back during 4 and 5 and 6, these boards were HOPPING no matter where in the release cycle you were. I think it hit a height right before the release of OOTP2006 and now, a year later, posts remain on the first page of the board despite not having any bumps for three or four days. No matter what you think of the game, 2006 polarized the boards. FWIW, I think thats a good indicator of how things stand.

Depends on what boards your referring too. If it's this one, then that's mostly because the amount of OT matieral and Talk Sports (and let's face it, that is the bulk of what is discussed on this board), has greatly diminished.

The rewrite may have polarized folks, but it isn't the main cause for the downward slide in activity.

silvam14 · 12-18-2006, 10:08 AM

I'm pretty sure I've posted this sometime shortly after 2006 came out, but I will again.

The thing I like the most about OOTP2006 is that it is only has to be as complex as you want it to be.

I can use it with three minor leagues just like in 6.5 and it works like 6.5 except with a lot more fun features.

Of course, if I wanted to add international leagues and rookie leagues, I would fully expect the game to become A LOT more complex.

I guess I just don't see the argument for less is more. I want more!

Cheers!

BigCity · 12-18-2006, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeiterFanatic

There are a lot of people who went thru that "sweet spot" at the same time, then.

That's a point that can't be ignored. This board was "huge" compared to what it is now. In all honesty, I've never seen it so slow for so long. It probably does mean there is less "cohesiveness" of ideas in the community. The unfortunate side effect of that is there is far less discussion and analysis.

APujols5 · 12-18-2006, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCity

That's a point that can't be ignored. This board was "huge" compared to what it is now. In all honesty, I've never seen it so slow for so long. It probably does mean there is less "cohesiveness" of ideas in the community. The unfortunate side effect of that is there is far less discussion and analysis.

Or maybe there's less conversation, because so many topics turn into unintelligent dribble. and a Good chunk of the others turn into arguements between the Pro and the Anti 06 Factions

BigCity · 12-18-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by APujols5

Or maybe there's less conversation, because so many topics turn into unintelligent dribble. and a Good chunk of the others turn into arguements between the Pro and the Anti 06 Factions

But that's the point, isn't it?

Either (1) there is too much disagreement on the "foundation" level of the game that the two sides can't have reasonable discussions, or (2) there are less posters now capable of having an intelligent discussion without degrading it to the point of "dribble" for fun.

There is yet "another" option. (3) That most previous posters either haven't been ABLE to keep up with the complexity, or have chosen NOT to.

Personally, I would prefer to believe (1) but suspect (3) may be the root cause.

PSUColonel · 12-18-2006, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCity

But that's the point, isn't it?

Either (1) there is too much disagreement on the "foundation" level of the game that the two sides can't have reasonable discussions, or (2) there are less posters now capable of having an intelligent discussion without degrading it to the point of "dribble" for fun.

There is yet "another" option. (3) That most previous posters either haven't been ABLE to keep up with the complexity, or have chosen NOT to.

Personally, I would prefer to believe (1) but suspect (3) may be the root cause.

I beleive you are correct. There are many people here who simply whine about how they don't like the interface, and therefore have never really dove in feet first because they don't like the functionality. There may be some things that can be improved, but it's nowhere near as bad as some are making it out to be, and as a result, those people have never really learned the game. That is NOT the developers fault. Anyone who has taken the time to dive into 2006 knows the direction it is going, and that it is a god direction, if it aims to become more like FM. What some of us are saying, is that there are many AI issues that need to be hashed out, and that what SI needs to do, is get a working model of modern day MLB baseball as a "core" of the game first. Then perhaps you can expand with other things such as historical play and the like. To continue adding option after option to a product that doesn't have a well oiled "core" yet is only going to cause more and more problems.

disposableheros · 12-18-2006, 01:50 PM

i suspect the lack of activity has many sources:

1) baseball season is over
2) a big portion of the OT crowd has left for (supposedly) greener pastures, many of which were longtime, bigtime, OOTP fans
3) didnt like the 2006 game and lost interest
4) dont like the direction the game is headed and found a better option, ITO
5) felt ignored/attacked during the 2006 release and see no need to return
6) dont like the seemingly constant argument threads between warring factions

and many more i cant think of off the top of my head

Eugene Church · 12-18-2006, 02:07 PM

I am hoping that Markus will take the good elements from FM and incorporate the baseball-relevant ones into OOTPB.

I always thought that the association with SI would improve OOTPB because of their success and computer coding expertise with FM.

I found that V2006 is much more complex than I wanted, but it is a better game for me than V6.51 (which I still play). The much-improved News Stories and PBP, although sorely in need of improvement themselves, is a plus for the V2006, and a step in the right direction.

Overall the graphics are better than V6.51, but sorely lacking in some areas. I am not a fan of the "faded out logos", the cluttered leaderboards and the poor in-game screens.

But the future looks good for me and V2007. The more I play V2006, the better I like it.

However, keep in mind, I play solo and with no financials and no minors. I just want a game that will give me a realistic baseball game when I play out games and give me realistic baseball stats.

I don't use the minors, because player promotion and development "seems" to still be based on draft position rather than performance and minor league stats. I don't think this is realistic.

V2006 "seems" to be no improvement in this area.

I was disappointed with V2006. I had great expectations for it. But having said that, it is still a wonderful game and I expect V2007 to be even better, since many 6.51 elements "could" return and be in it.

Despite being disappointed with V2006, I still intend to try to get it inproved and will help as much as I can toward that goal.

It seems that the board is not as active as it used to be. Threads stay for days and weeks sometimes on the first page of the forums. That did not used to be the case. So viewership seems to be way down. But I have no figures for my accessment.

I will continue to evaluate OOTPB, and when necessary, offer constructive criticisms, but in a courteous and polite way. There is never any reason for being discourteous on this board. I really dislike it when a thread gets distracted and hijacked by name-calling and a lack of courtesy.

I hope all of us will keep to the thread subject and do it in a courteous manner.

LeiterFanatic · 12-18-2006, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

i suspect the lack of activity has many sources:

1) baseball season is over
2) a big portion of the OT crowd has left for (supposedly) greener pastures, many of which were longtime, bigtime, OOTP fans
3) didnt like the 2006 game and lost interest
4) dont like the direction the game is headed and found a better option, ITO
5) felt ignored/attacked during the 2006 release and see no need to return
6) dont like the seemingly constant argument threads between warring factions

and many more i cant think of off the top of my head

I think the first reason is bogus, because I remember this forum being very active all year long.
But as to the others, this is the point: This game has ALWAYS had proponents and opponents of some feature or another for each of its versions. But people were loyal and NEW people were coming. Now people left "in droves," as it was stated, and VERY FEW people are replacing them. I can think of no single greater factor to attribute it to than people just do not like the new direction the game went in.

thehatfield · 12-18-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigCity

All I ask is that you think about what your asking for when it comes to complexity. Sometimes, less is more.

Great post.

I keyed on your last statement because I have not had one problem with the complexity of 2006. I don't mean to sound silly but what is it exactly that's too complex? Just there being too many options? I always thought the defaults in OOTP allowed a casual gamer to go about their baseball game playing while the game setup allowed you to get as crazy as you wanted and to me that's the way 2006 is too.

I also wanted to comment on your thoughts about the easier game being the one that would be played more devoutly than a harder one. While the time argument makes sense the overall thought seems counter-intuitive to me as the more difficult game would constantly be revealing new aspects (even by accident) and would attract the sort of "hardcore" person that would appreciate such detail. You might not get a sale from the person who prefers a "swing" button and nothing else but that casual audience seems to me more likely not to be emotionally invested enough to be lifetime (or even half-decade) supporters of a particular title.

Melo · 12-18-2006, 03:07 PM

I bought the game well after release. At first I thought it was too complicated but as i've played it, it has gotten to be less like work an more fun. Coming from 6.51 it was much more complicated than I had anticipated. However, now, I find it quite enjoyable. I can put together a good universe in a snap, or pull up a template and be rolling rather quickly. It should be noted that I could learn to overlook little flaws in my setup; flaws that would have been unacceptable with 6.51. It's still faster and easier to get started with 6.51 but the level of depth available with 06 trumps that's issue, IMO.

I did some historical simming with 6.51 (I'm not hardcore though) but have yet to attempt any with 2006. Without ghost players, I just can't see it being a fruitful experience for me. I'll look into it with 2007. I don't think historical simmers should be looked upon as fringe players either. Some of the brightest. most accomplished players are historical simmers and their attention to detail should be VALUED by others on this board. Many such players were integral to player advancements with previous versions of the game.

There are still some severe AI issues. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a teams A level team loaded up with 40 useless prospects after the organization has release 6-10 legit prospects from the higher level minor league teams. I have a hard time quarrelling with that though because we can't expect Markus to code an AI to handle the plethora of possibilities in a game such as this. I'll live with it and try to all the the things I always do: tinker with what I can to eliminate as much as I can and not obsess over over the rest.

Finally, I haven't really participated on these boards because the helpful posts are few and far between. It used to be where there would usually be good pointers, good tips and useful little nuggets of experience that would be passed along. There still are but I gotta wade through a lot crap to make it worth it. On earlier boards if someone acted like an ass, they got smacked around for acting like an ass. It seems like now, on these boards, there's a lot of people who just don't like each other and seem content to just let it be about that.

I'll play 2007, I'll probably even pre-order but I don't hold out much hope for a real community thriving again. Not that I wouldn't embrace that, it just seems unlikely.

BigCity · 12-18-2006, 03:31 PM

Purple Cowboy,

Complexity is usually exponential, meaning for each new option you add/turn on, there are three more things that now act differently. Think of it like family trees, 1-2-4-8-16-32-64. Six added options can make the game 64 times as complex.

Example. Player "A" loads up the game and turns on options 1,4 13, and 18. He plays the game, finds something weird, and posts on the board his findings.

Well, if there are 20 options in the game, that means there are 20 * 20, multiplied 20 times, possibilities of how the 20 options can be combined. Whatever that number is (in the trillions) is how many combinations of options there are. Now, if each option configuration can effect whether something works or not, you have that many (trillions?) of potential problems.

Long story short, it's very possible no one else has tried to play the game with that combination of variables. In fact, it's probably likely that it wasn't even tested!!

So, my argument is that more options makes the game complexity reach a point that is VERY difficult to support.

Now, having said that, I doubt the 50 or so options in OOTP results in THAT many configurations because they don't all affect each other - but it certainly makes my point. Even if there are only 5,000 total combinations, a lot of "territory" never got tested.

Back to our player... he asks if anyone has seen this problem, and other players ask whether anyone has seen THEIR problem, and most of these combinations have never been used - much less tested, then ultimately, there's no discussion taking place because no one can answer the question.

If it turns out it IS a problem, then it goes to Markus - who has MANY of these, and generally never gets them all done. So, what happens?
Over time, more and more players are upset because it feels like no one is paying attention. Some problems go on forever, and people finally leave in disgust.

How do you fix it? You either hire 100s of testers, or you simplify the game, or you take 10 years to get it done by yourself and the current bunch of beta testers.

This is a rough description of what I think is happening here.

As far as your 2nd question, I think most people keep playing a game if you can introduce a manageable amount of new options - AND they all work. OOTP 2006 didn't do that. It added a TON of new features, some of which didn't work well because of what I posted above - and a number of folks gave up on the game.

Will they come back? Some will if Version 7 is more stable (meaning the core game works right) and folks are around to answer questions, discuss ideas, and analyze results.

If that doesn't happen, I'm not sure what will happen.

disposableheros · 12-18-2006, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeiterFanatic

I think the first reason is bogus, because I remember this forum being very active all year long.
But as to the others, this is the point: This game has ALWAYS had proponents and opponents of some feature or another for each of its versions. But people were loyal and NEW people were coming. Now people left "in droves," as it was stated, and VERY FEW people are replacing them. I can think of no single greater factor to attribute it to than people just do not like the new direction the game went in.

ok, you win the argument.

i change my mind....everyone has left for the same exact reason and no new people are joining because:

1) the direction of the game.

andymac · 12-18-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeiterFanatic

I can think of no single greater factor to attribute it to than people just do not like the new direction the game went in.

What was the new direction the game went in?

silvam14 · 12-18-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disposableheros

ok, you win the argument.

i change my mind....everyone has left for the same exact reason and no new people are joining because:

1) the direction of the game.

...and don't forget all of the game owners who never post, therefore never posted that they too were leaving for the same reasons....

BigCity · 12-18-2006, 03:44 PM

And a word about Ghost players (or my opinion anyway).

The concept of ghost players isn't such a bad thing - and was really ingenious in my opinion.

Let's say you have 1000 players in your minors - any minors. Over these guys careers, about 100 or so will make it to the bigs. Some of them will do it within a fews years, a few more will do it later.

The "other" 900 will be career minor leaguers, period.

The question becomes, "why do we need to see these 900 players?".

Well, if we are INTERESTED in the minor league histories, we will probably say "yes" - I want those guy's histories. If we're only interested in the show, however, then we're only interested in those that will eventually make it to the bigs.

Full rosters at every level require management. And that is DAILY management, as injuries occur, fatigue, etc. This gets into my earlier post about how much detail do you, as GM, want to spend your time on.

Ghost players eliminate the daily management of the minor leagues. The AI can easily (debatable) check them out now and then and keep things moving, allowing the players that ARE named to progress.

With full rosters, the minor league teams must be managed the same as the major league teams - and "cooperation" between the affiliates must be in place so that one move at one level doesn't make another level have to do something stupid.

So, here we are, again back to "options". Some want ghost players, some don't. We add the option to turn them either ON or OFF, and we open up even more possibilities with all the other options for things to go wrong...

12-18-2006, 09:40 AM	#41
ihatenames Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Rockford Posts: 2,534	I agree 2006 is the better game. It's a little rough around the edges, but i'm confident markus will clean up the problems for 2007. __________________ New Album coming soon!

12-18-2006, 10:08 AM	#46
silvam14 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dedham, MA Posts: 10,199	I'm pretty sure I've posted this sometime shortly after 2006 came out, but I will again. The thing I like the most about OOTP2006 is that it is only has to be as complex as you want it to be. I can use it with three minor leagues just like in 6.5 and it works like 6.5 except with a lot more fun features. Of course, if I wanted to add international leagues and rookie leagues, I would fully expect the game to become A LOT more complex. I guess I just don't see the argument for less is more. I want more! Cheers! __________________ Senior "Nancy Boy" of the OOTP Boards _______________________________________________

12-18-2006, 01:50 PM	#51
disposableheros Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 4,332	i suspect the lack of activity has many sources: 1) baseball season is over 2) a big portion of the OT crowd has left for (supposedly) greener pastures, many of which were longtime, bigtime, OOTP fans 3) didnt like the 2006 game and lost interest 4) dont like the direction the game is headed and found a better option, ITO 5) felt ignored/attacked during the 2006 release and see no need to return 6) dont like the seemingly constant argument threads between warring factions and many more i cant think of off the top of my head __________________ 2 Wild Cards, 11 Division Champs, 4 League Champs, 3 World Champs, and 3 Best GM awards Baseball Maelstrom - New York Mets - 180-149 .547 Corporate League Baseball - Coke Buzz - 889-649 .578 Western Hemisphere Baseball League - Santiago Saints - 672-793 .459 Record - 2428-2271 .517

12-18-2006, 02:07 PM	#52
Eugene Church Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 36,292	I am hoping that Markus will take the good elements from FM and incorporate the baseball-relevant ones into OOTPB. I always thought that the association with SI would improve OOTPB because of their success and computer coding expertise with FM. I found that V2006 is much more complex than I wanted, but it is a better game for me than V6.51 (which I still play). The much-improved News Stories and PBP, although sorely in need of improvement themselves, is a plus for the V2006, and a step in the right direction. Overall the graphics are better than V6.51, but sorely lacking in some areas. I am not a fan of the "faded out logos", the cluttered leaderboards and the poor in-game screens. But the future looks good for me and V2007. The more I play V2006, the better I like it. However, keep in mind, I play solo and with no financials and no minors. I just want a game that will give me a realistic baseball game when I play out games and give me realistic baseball stats. I don't use the minors, because player promotion and development "seems" to still be based on draft position rather than performance and minor league stats. I don't think this is realistic. V2006 "seems" to be no improvement in this area. I was disappointed with V2006. I had great expectations for it. But having said that, it is still a wonderful game and I expect V2007 to be even better, since many 6.51 elements "could" return and be in it. Despite being disappointed with V2006, I still intend to try to get it inproved and will help as much as I can toward that goal. It seems that the board is not as active as it used to be. Threads stay for days and weeks sometimes on the first page of the forums. That did not used to be the case. So viewership seems to be way down. But I have no figures for my accessment. I will continue to evaluate OOTPB, and when necessary, offer constructive criticisms, but in a courteous and polite way. There is never any reason for being discourteous on this board. I really dislike it when a thread gets distracted and hijacked by name-calling and a lack of courtesy. I hope all of us will keep to the thread subject and do it in a courteous manner. Last edited by Eugene Church; 12-18-2006 at 02:10 PM.

12-18-2006, 09:45 AM	#42
BigCity All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Shore, Great Lakes Posts: 1,386	This discussion never seems to end... Just a few points that haven't been mentioned, yet I think are critical to understanding how to shape the future of this game. I've been around since 2001 (Ver.3) - and I can pretty much tell you that most of the folks that played OOTP3 aren't here any longer. Now, that's NOT because version 3 was better than following versions - it's because each of us (or most of us have lives beyond OOTP. Time changes those lives in many ways, and priorities change with it. Any customer of ANY game evolves through a "sweet spot" in terms of his interest, his time, and what is going on in his life. People do not play a specific game "forever" since outside variables manipulate our time and interests. Let's use me as an example. My "sweet spot" lasted about 5 years. I had the time and the interest to be a regular part of this community, and took part in much of went on for 4 versions (3 through 6). in the 2005-6 time frame, life changed a bit, and version 2006 got significantly more detailed - just enough to force me to back away from the game a bit. I play 6.5 and 2006 at this point when I have time, and the FACT I don't have that much time is probably why I don't jump into 2006 with both feet. Ok. That's the background - now let me get back to the subject... IF a person has a limited "sweet spot" to get deeply involved in a game, let's compare two games - an "easy one (Version 6.5) and a "harder" one (version 2006). A person's involvement with the "easy" game will probably last longer. Why? Because he can get "into it" easier, and the differences from version to version are "absorbable" in a short amount of time. As some here have said, they "enjoy playing" the game. A person's involvement with the "harder" game will probably last a shorter time. Why? Because it takes more of an effort to learn, and takes more time to learn between versions if that game continues to get more complex. It's likely life will change and the person will have to re-evaluate his priorities sooner. That being said, there are ALWAYS the few who will make playing the "game" their first priority, and there are always exceptions - but generally what I have said here is the norm. With me, I had to drop online gaming when 2006 came out because I simply did not have the time to learn the new details of being in a 2006 league. I stayed in one 6.5 league for a while, but eventually had to give that up as well. I suspect many leagues haven't changed because the members don't want to have to increase their investment of time to make the conversion work. Most of you will not be here (on the board) in 5 years. You will have gone off to other interests, and you will make that choice when playing the game becomes "too hard" from the standpoint of time. It would seem to me that this must be taken into consideration when "designing" the game - or deciding how "difficult" to make it. A difficult game that takes time to learn will be used by customers for a shorter length of time before it becomes "too much" for them. An "easier" game may not fulfill all the wishes one has, but will be played for a longer period of time. No matter how I turn that over in my head - it seems like more customers for a longer period of time results in more money to be earned. One more thing... somewhere we have to separate being a "REAL" GM with being a GM in OOTP. Sure, we could incorporate every nuance of a GM's true day into the game, but it would take years to learn - and would be more of a "job" than a game. I think what the best of all worlds is - is a GAME that "simulates" being a GM. A game that includes all the FUN parts of being a GM without adding the mundane stuff. In a true world GM job, you have hundreds of people working for you, taking care of the details you can't get to yourself. This is what OOTP should do. This is why I am one who gets a bit aggravated when more and more details are stacked onto the list of requests. Details that, yes, are a part of the baseball world, but it's like putting ONE MAN in charge of what is done by HUNDREDS in a real world scenario. What happens then is you build a "game" that truly isn't a "game". So, what am I saying in conclusion? I guess I'm saying I want OOTP to be fun. I want to get the "feeling" I'm a GM, but I don't want to make every decision that has to be made in the real world. Have the game handle some of that for me and let me get PO'd at "whoever" made that decision. Let me play the game, realizing I can't control everything, and that is also the way real life is. Let me lose a championship because "had 'I' been setting the lineups of that minor league team I could have....". Bottom line, let me "enjoy" the game for as many years as possible before life gets in the way. The last year, I've gone back to my "roots" in being a baseball researcher. I love the game, and I love finding out things I didn't know. I still play out my UBA league (in Version 5!) and my MLB-PCL League in 6.5, and a PONY League (Pennsylvania-Ohio-New York) in 2006. I probably put 80% of my time into the Ver5 and Ver6.6 leagues than 2006. I'll be looking forward to 2007 like everyone else, but suspect 2007 will be "too complex" for me to either move my leagues to, or start a new one. I'll but the game, mainly becasue I want to pay Markus back for all the enjoyment I've recieved over the years - but I also suspect I'm in the minority of those who have passed their "sweet spot". All I ask is that you think about what your asking for when it comes to complexity. Sometimes, less is more.

12-18-2006, 09:46 AM	#43
LeiterFanatic All Star Starter Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Miami, FL Posts: 1,358	As I have pointed out before, one of the best indicators of the success of the direction of OOTP is the abandonment of a large number of people from this community. Back during 4 and 5 and 6, these boards were HOPPING no matter where in the release cycle you were. I think it hit a height right before the release of OOTP2006 and now, a year later, posts remain on the first page of the board despite not having any bumps for three or four days. No matter what you think of the game, 2006 polarized the boards. FWIW, I think thats a good indicator of how things stand.

12-18-2006, 03:07 PM	#55
Melo All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Where the baned reside Posts: 1,428	I bought the game well after release. At first I thought it was too complicated but as i've played it, it has gotten to be less like work an more fun. Coming from 6.51 it was much more complicated than I had anticipated. However, now, I find it quite enjoyable. I can put together a good universe in a snap, or pull up a template and be rolling rather quickly. It should be noted that I could learn to overlook little flaws in my setup; flaws that would have been unacceptable with 6.51. It's still faster and easier to get started with 6.51 but the level of depth available with 06 trumps that's issue, IMO. I did some historical simming with 6.51 (I'm not hardcore though) but have yet to attempt any with 2006. Without ghost players, I just can't see it being a fruitful experience for me. I'll look into it with 2007. I don't think historical simmers should be looked upon as fringe players either. Some of the brightest. most accomplished players are historical simmers and their attention to detail should be VALUED by others on this board. Many such players were integral to player advancements with previous versions of the game. There are still some severe AI issues. Nothing annoys me more than seeing a teams A level team loaded up with 40 useless prospects after the organization has release 6-10 legit prospects from the higher level minor league teams. I have a hard time quarrelling with that though because we can't expect Markus to code an AI to handle the plethora of possibilities in a game such as this. I'll live with it and try to all the the things I always do: tinker with what I can to eliminate as much as I can and not obsess over over the rest. Finally, I haven't really participated on these boards because the helpful posts are few and far between. It used to be where there would usually be good pointers, good tips and useful little nuggets of experience that would be passed along. There still are but I gotta wade through a lot crap to make it worth it. On earlier boards if someone acted like an ass, they got smacked around for acting like an ass. It seems like now, on these boards, there's a lot of people who just don't like each other and seem content to just let it be about that. I'll play 2007, I'll probably even pre-order but I don't hold out much hope for a real community thriving again. Not that I wouldn't embrace that, it just seems unlikely.

12-18-2006, 03:31 PM	#56
BigCity All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Shore, Great Lakes Posts: 1,386	Purple Cowboy, Complexity is usually exponential, meaning for each new option you add/turn on, there are three more things that now act differently. Think of it like family trees, 1-2-4-8-16-32-64. Six added options can make the game 64 times as complex. Example. Player "A" loads up the game and turns on options 1,4 13, and 18. He plays the game, finds something weird, and posts on the board his findings. Well, if there are 20 options in the game, that means there are 20 * 20, multiplied 20 times, possibilities of how the 20 options can be combined. Whatever that number is (in the trillions) is how many combinations of options there are. Now, if each option configuration can effect whether something works or not, you have that many (trillions?) of potential problems. Long story short, it's very possible no one else has tried to play the game with that combination of variables. In fact, it's probably likely that it wasn't even tested!! So, my argument is that more options makes the game complexity reach a point that is VERY difficult to support. Now, having said that, I doubt the 50 or so options in OOTP results in THAT many configurations because they don't all affect each other - but it certainly makes my point. Even if there are only 5,000 total combinations, a lot of "territory" never got tested. Back to our player... he asks if anyone has seen this problem, and other players ask whether anyone has seen THEIR problem, and most of these combinations have never been used - much less tested, then ultimately, there's no discussion taking place because no one can answer the question. If it turns out it IS a problem, then it goes to Markus - who has MANY of these, and generally never gets them all done. So, what happens? Over time, more and more players are upset because it feels like no one is paying attention. Some problems go on forever, and people finally leave in disgust. How do you fix it? You either hire 100s of testers, or you simplify the game, or you take 10 years to get it done by yourself and the current bunch of beta testers. This is a rough description of what I think is happening here. As far as your 2nd question, I think most people keep playing a game if you can introduce a manageable amount of new options - AND they all work. OOTP 2006 didn't do that. It added a TON of new features, some of which didn't work well because of what I posted above - and a number of folks gave up on the game. Will they come back? Some will if Version 7 is more stable (meaning the core game works right) and folks are around to answer questions, discuss ideas, and analyze results. If that doesn't happen, I'm not sure what will happen.

12-18-2006, 03:44 PM	#60
BigCity All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: South Shore, Great Lakes Posts: 1,386	And a word about Ghost players (or my opinion anyway). The concept of ghost players isn't such a bad thing - and was really ingenious in my opinion. Let's say you have 1000 players in your minors - any minors. Over these guys careers, about 100 or so will make it to the bigs. Some of them will do it within a fews years, a few more will do it later. The "other" 900 will be career minor leaguers, period. The question becomes, "why do we need to see these 900 players?". Well, if we are INTERESTED in the minor league histories, we will probably say "yes" - I want those guy's histories. If we're only interested in the show, however, then we're only interested in those that will eventually make it to the bigs. Full rosters at every level require management. And that is DAILY management, as injuries occur, fatigue, etc. This gets into my earlier post about how much detail do you, as GM, want to spend your time on. Ghost players eliminate the daily management of the minor leagues. The AI can easily (debatable) check them out now and then and keep things moving, allowing the players that ARE named to progress. With full rosters, the minor league teams must be managed the same as the major league teams - and "cooperation" between the affiliates must be in place so that one move at one level doesn't make another level have to do something stupid. So, here we are, again back to "options". Some want ghost players, some don't. We add the option to turn them either ON or OFF, and we open up even more possibilities with all the other options for things to go wrong...