How does this game get good ratings ???

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by mking55

And who the hell reads the manual anyhow?

I read it... every page... twice! Of course, you knew that.

But the point is well taken. This stuff isn't spelled out in there or I wouldn't have needed the excellent lesson from PhillieFever on how to get the results I wanted. I hope you are able to come up with the settings that give you the next Dick Wakefield.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by mking55

Mr. PhillieFever, this is an excellent post and while off-topic, it doesn't take away from the clarity you express in it. It deserves a sticky thread of it's own. (I'm being serious).

What good are some features if people don't know about them or understand them? In the heat of our "disagreement" yesterday I think we were more interested in finding flaws in what the other person said than calmly putting down our thoughts. That must have been your fault and if it wasn't then it was mine.

Personally, I only play historical. However, I don't want history to repeat itself. To go back to Pat Seerey and his 815 home runs, I absolutely loved it. I don't want "Fat Pat" to retire early and be never remembered. "Fat Pat" doing that (that rhymes) made me look him up and learn interesting things about him like his induction into Ted Williams's hitters hall of fame.

The one thing you explained wonderfully above was about the potential. Potential based on the entire career is quite logical to me. I went looking for this and I'm not sure I found it so I'll ask you.

I went into league setup and looked at player ratings (right side of screen). The 2 options at the top were whited out. I clicked on the top one and they both showed. The 1st one is the recalc after every year and the 2nd is prevent recalc of potential ratings. I assume that's what you're referring to.

I don't want recalc after every year but I do want the 2nd one regarding potential. So I clicked on it and then removed the check from the 1st one. What happens is that the 2nd one is now whited out but I can see the check mark is still there.

So, is this how it should look? Am I doing the right thing to get the whole career decide on potential? I'm just looking to import historical players and if they run wild, so be it. But I like the idea of the potential based on career if it will stop me from stealing every decent rookie who comes up to play.

Thanks in advance.

There should probably be a section of the forum where people can't reply but every potentially confusing feature or new feature is explained. One thread for every feature to be explained. That would be a positive step forward.

First thing, you're right. My fault was the same as yours. It's amazing what can be accomplished when people work together rather than trying to 1up someone else huh? Secondly, once player development is enabled, all of what I said goes out the window. The development engine takes over, and player potential becomes a whole 'nother thing entirely. If however you have the player development engine disabled, then obviously you need some type of recalc which in turn allows the option for disabling the recalc of potential. Without recalc, there's no need to disable the recalc of potential. Once you enable the player development system, Mickey Mantle is no longer himself, he's just a fictional player by the name of Mickey Mantle, and his potential is totally controlled by the development system itself.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by Orcin

I read it... every page... twice! Of course, you knew that.

But the point is well taken. This stuff isn't spelled out in there or I wouldn't have needed the excellent lesson from PhillieFever on how to get the results I wanted. I hope you are able to come up with the settings that give you the next Dick Wakefield.

The manual is not very good at describing the subtle nuances of the game, it's a very basic text that get's you up and running. Everything I've learned about this game has come from other players here such as Spritze, Garlon, Injury Log and several others and my own trial and error during beta phases.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by mking55

Maybe I understand what you're saying and I appreciate your attempt to guide me through this minefield.

I want to spit back at you what I think you've said, and you can confirm I understand (that can happen) or correct me. I thank you in advance.

I want to play historical. I don't want the player's to be recalculated year by year (or even after 3 years). I just want them to import and let the game decide how they'll develop. I'm not looking for strict replay or reality, but for an alternate universe on the other side of the looking glass.

My problem, that I hope could be somewhat alleviated, was my ability to stack my team with every good young player I desire to have with the trading set to most difficult. I thought PhillieFever was suggesting a way that the game would take better care of the superstars of tomorrow (Mantle, Mays, etc.) and keep me from getting them so easily.

Now I think you're telling me I'm SOL. I thought I was being told that upon import a player's potential would be derived from their entire career (i.e. It's Mantle so no one can ever get him in a trade except when he's 112 years old). I thought I was being told that I could set up the game to deliver that kind of potential.

Now I think you're telling me I can't. I have to use recalc on the player's ratings to disable recalc on the player's potential. Is that what you're telling me?

I must say that if that's the case, that's crazy. If the game has the ability to create potential based on an entire career, that should be independent of when their ratings are recalculated and should just be a part of the development engine.

You tell me if I understand or what I'm missing please. Thank you.

What you're saying is correct, and here's the reason for it. When using recalc, a player's career is already virtually defined for them up to one standard deviation, so on the whole, guys are who they are. The player knows this, the AI does not. That's why this new feature was introduced, to give the AI the same benefit of the player(more or less). Once development is enabled, you're both in the dark and on an even playing field. You can go ahead and stack your lineup with guys who were stars in R/L, there's no guarantee they will be in the game. What I think will help you is upping the talent change randomness to the max(200) then you'll never know who's going to be good.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

First thing, you're right. My fault was the same as yours. It's amazing what can be accomplished when people work together rather than trying to 1up someone else huh? Secondly, once player development is enabled, all of what I said goes out the window. The development engine takes over, and player potential becomes a whole 'nother thing entirely. If however you have the player development engine disabled, then obviously you need some type of recalc which in turn allows the option for disabling the recalc of potential. Without recalc, there's no need to disable the recalc of potential. Once you enable the player development system, Mickey Mantle is no longer himself, he's just a fictional player by the name of Mickey Mantle, and his potential is totally controlled by the development system itself.

I think I understand but I respectfully disagree with you where you say, and I quote, "Once you enable the player development system, Mickey Mantle is no longer himself, he's just a fictional player by the name of Mickey Mantle, and his potential is totally controlled by the development system itself."

Where I disagree is that Mickey Mantle WILL be Mickey Mantle or close to him. Ted Williams will always be Ted Williams or close to him. Stan Musial will always be Stan Musial or close to him. (Enough examples). My point is that the great players are always great or close to great. I have seen the also-rans (Pat Seerey) be great in this game and that's fine. I've never seen Ted Williams as a bum.

So the development system works in such a way that players like Williams develop in the way that players like Williams develop, which is great. I think the game needs to identify these guys (and I'm sure the technology and knowhow is there) and treat them accordingly. By that I mean, don't trade them. Period.

I shopped a 21 year old Gus Bell and I was offered a 29 year old Stan Musial who needless to say went on to win the batter of the year award. I expect he will win a few more. Every single time I play this game or the other one, guys like Musial are always great. I would trade a 21 year old Bell for a 29 year old Musial any day. I'm sure I would have done it back in 1950 if I was a GM.

Now in the other game as I think I mentioned, I can't get Musial for anything. The game tilts the other way. I can offer 5 great guys for Musial and it's a trade I would take (I just offer the guys to check on the game), and the AI team will not give up Musial. Ever. I feel because of things like that the trade engine is better. Better to err on the side of not trading away greatness than to err on the side of trading it away. And I'm playing the same style game (player development engine working on imported players whose ratings are never recalculated).

So to summarize, the player development engine by itself will always develop the real life great players as great players in the game. It MAY develop the okay players as great players. But you will never see Ted Williams as a lousy player in this game. And I don't think you should either.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by mking55

I think I understand but I respectfully disagree with you where you say, and I quote, "Once you enable the player development system, Mickey Mantle is no longer himself, he's just a fictional player by the name of Mickey Mantle, and his potential is totally controlled by the development system itself."

Where I disagree is that Mickey Mantle WILL be Mickey Mantle or close to him. Ted Williams will always be Ted Williams or close to him. Stan Musial will always be Stan Musial or close to him. (Enough examples). My point is that the great players are always great or close to great. I have seen the also-rans (Pat Seerey) be great in this game and that's fine. I've never seen Ted Williams as a bum.

So the development system works in such a way that players like Williams develop in the way that players like Williams develop, which is great. I think the game needs to identify these guys (and I'm sure the technology and knowhow is there) and treat them accordingly. By that I mean, don't trade them. Period.

I shopped a 21 year old Gus Bell and I was offered a 29 year old Stan Musial who needless to say went on to win the batter of the year award. I expect he will win a few more. Every single time I play this game or the other one, guys like Musial are always great. I would trade a 21 year old Bell for a 29 year old Musial any day. I'm sure I would have done it back in 1950 if I was a GM.

Now in the other game as I think I mentioned, I can't get Musial for anything. The game tilts the other way. I can offer 5 great guys for Musial and it's a trade I would take (I just offer the guys to check on the game), and the AI team will not give up Musial. Ever. I feel because of things like that the trade engine is better. Better to err on the side of not trading away greatness than to err on the side of trading it away. And I'm playing the same style game (player development engine working on imported players whose ratings are never recalculated).

So to summarize, the player development engine by itself will always develop the real life great players as great players in the game. It MAY develop the okay players as great players. But you will never see Ted Williams as a lousy player in this game. And I don't think you should either.

Well how about that. I never play that way, so I just assumed it was true. Huh. I guess what happens is, when the players are imported, they import as their natural selves, making it difficult for say a Ted Williams to be anything else but great, although it should still be possible for him to flame out as long as recalc is disabled. If what you say is the case, then the suggestion I gave you(upping talent change randomness) is what you definitely what to do. Although it's not ideal, it is better than the alternative. As for the trading engine, I plan on doing my best next beta season to get some changes made.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

As for the trading engine, I plan on doing my best next beta season to get some changes made.

I'm glad to read that. I've put a great deal of thought into it and the only thing I can come up with is an internal "look-ahead" feature. When imported the game looks at the entire career of the player and puts a value on him. This would make (in theory) a Ted Williams virtually impossible to trade for. Which he should be.

Of course, there may be other excellent ideas out there but I'm convinced it can be done.

[PhillieFever]

Originally Posted by mking55

I'm glad to read that. I've put a great deal of thought into it and the only thing I can come up with is an internal "look-ahead" feature. When imported the game looks at the entire career of the player and puts a value on him. This would make (in theory) a Ted Williams virtually impossible to trade for. Which he should be.

Of course, there may be other excellent ideas out there but I'm convinced it can be done.

Why don't you join the beta team, there seems to always be a shortage of good people once the beta cycle gets underway, leaving a ton of work to just a few dedicated individuals.

[actionjackson]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

Well how about that. I never play that way, so I just assumed it was true. Huh. I guess what happens is, when the players are imported, they import as their natural selves, making it difficult for say a Ted Williams to be anything else but great, although it should still be possible for him to flame out as long as recalc is disabled. If what you say is the case, then the suggestion I gave you(upping talent change randomness) is what you definitely what to do. Although it's not ideal, it is better than the alternative. As for the trading engine, I plan on doing my best next beta season to get some changes made.

Originally Posted by mking55

I'm glad to read that. I've put a great deal of thought into it and the only thing I can come up with is an internal "look-ahead" feature. When imported the game looks at the entire career of the player and puts a value on him. This would make (in theory) a Ted Williams virtually impossible to trade for. Which he should be.

Of course, there may be other excellent ideas out there but I'm convinced it can be done.

This is what I was trying to get at with this suggestion:

Originally Posted by actionjackson

Totally off the top of my head re: the trade engine shortcomings. Would it be possible to do the same thing as the game does with the draft value AI? I know this feature doesn't work ideally yet, but supposedly it's better. To wit: the AI draft value is supposed to assign the player's career Runs Created and come up with a number to represent the player's draft value. Maybe in the case of trades, it could formulate a number based on the remaining years of the player's career and use WAR or VORP or something to that effect. Just food for thought tossed into the churning blender of ideas on how to improve the historical trade engine. I know zero about programming, so I'm not sure how feasible this is, but if it was done for the draft...Who knows?

I figure if something can be attempted to ameliorate the draft, then the same type of thing should be used to improve the trade engine. I'm open to what stat should be used (though it should most definitely not be team dependent), but the basic idea is to give the AI some info on what is going to happen, in order to attempt to balance the scales a bit. The draft value AI was used to prevent the human player from being able to snag Lou Gehrig in the 4th round and other such silliness. Obviously attempting this with the trade engine is much trickier because the AI has to figure out where the player is at the time of the proposed trade and how much value (by an independent metric) the player(s) has (have) left in his (their) career. It's just a suggestion. At one point, the draft AI needed some help and it got it. The time has come to help the trade AI, if indeed it can be done.

EDIT: I'm happy to see the direction this thread has taken. I think it should be used as an example to counter the arguments some present to "lock this thread". Sometimes the wind changes direction and a thread can go from a snipe fest to a helpful thread. Just tossing it out there. Make of it what you will.

[mking55]

Originally Posted by PhillieFever

Why don't you join the beta team, there seems to always be a shortage of good people once the beta cycle gets underway, leaving a ton of work to just a few dedicated individuals.

Me? Beta tester? I think some people on this board would have a heart attack if I was beta tester. I once applied several versions ago but I was ignored. And I did volunteer nicely.

I don't think it would work out (now there's a defeatist attitude). I don't know how the beta testing is done for this game but if I was assigned to check on individual parts of the game I don't think I'd enjoy it. I'm more of a overall test driver and I'll tell you where I think the problems are and suggest something to solve them.

The other thing is I'm not sure the attitude of the developer is something I can work with. My interaction with him, while always polite on my part (believe it or not) and "constructive criticism", is usually met with the attitude of arrogance and I don't know what I'm talking about. My last interaction, which I've mentioned before, was a reply that this trading engine is the best one out there (it isn't, trust me), and that if I was really making the trades I claimed to have made then I was the Theo Epstein of sim baseball. That's not a good attitude to have.

Originally Posted by actionjackson

I figure if something can be attempted to ameliorate the draft, then the same type of thing should be used to improve the trade engine. I'm open to what stat should be used (though it should most definitely not be team dependent), but the basic idea is to give the AI some info on what is going to happen, in order to attempt to balance the scales a bit. The draft value AI was used to prevent the human player from being able to snag Lou Gehrig in the 4th round and other such silliness. Obviously attempting this with the trade engine is much trickier because the AI has to figure out where the player is at the time of the proposed trade and how much value (by an independent metric) the player(s) has (have) left in his (their) career. It's just a suggestion. At one point the draft AI needed some help and it got it. The time has come to help the trade AI, if indeed it can be done.

I'm not saying I'm for or against what you're suggesting but the fact that you have ideas that might help is the sort of thing that should be listened to. Not by me because I don't count, but the powers that be. If they take the attitude of trying to build a better mousetrap then everyone wins. However, I'm not sure that is their mindset.

Originally Posted by actionjackson

EDIT: I'm happy to see the direction this thread has taken. I think it should be used as an example to counter the arguments some present to "lock this thread". Sometimes the wind changes direction and a thread can go from a snipe fest to a helpful thread. Just tossing it out there. Make of it what you will.

I knew when I posted that I'd get attacked for what I thought (and I was) but for a change I was reasonably polite in response. I think that helped and the agreement with PhillieFever that it's okay to disagree helped to turn this around (although not exactly on topic regarding the thread) and bring in some insightful and excellent posts including yours. Sometimes you have to lock because it just gets to be a back and forth of silliness. Sometimes, as you said above, it can turn into something helpful.

[PhillieFever]

Although I'll never profess to being a saint, I do find that sometimes an argument can turn out good for both parties as long as a certain level of respect is held for the other person's view, regardless if you agree with it or not. What looks good from my side of the street, doesn't always look the same on the other. This is an important point that I feel a lot of people miss when they're in the heat of a discussion. Personally, I'm pretty happy we were able to go over a few points, bat it back and forth and come away with a new found respect for another person's point of view.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Real MD

I understand where you're coming from, but since so few of us here have that requisite 'inside' knowledge, I guess the alternative is to keep our opinions to ourselves and say nothing at all?

And where did I suggest that?

My point was a rebuttal to those who offer opinions from the outside as if those assessment are iron-clad facts. They are not, since those opinions are made in the absence of relevant information.

Certainly, user perception is an important factor, and how things are being received must be given its due consideration since that reception may not be what was intended. But that perception should not be confused with it necessarily being the true picture of all that goes on behind the scenes.

In terms of pointing out shortcomings in the game, that is always useful. The key is that such feedback be presented in a constructive way. That is not always the case however, which limits the practical usefulness of such non-constructive feedback. (It should be noted that non-constructive feedback is all too often pretty much a staple of the gaming industry. It's hardly limited to OOTP. Visit just about any game's forum and you can see complaints that offer little insight. The Gears of War forums, to name one, offer lots of examples.)

[Le Grande Orange]

As a general comment on the historical play questions, I'll just point out the 800-lb. gorilla in the room on that front: the fact that there is no one universal definition of what a historical league should be. Different folks want different things when they play a historical league. That simple reality creates an enormous number of complications in terms of how a historical league should operate and what kinds of numbers it ought to produce.

[Orcin]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Different folks want different things when they play a historical league.

One of the reasons that this game is receiving a good rating from me is the flexibility contained within the game options to produce a variety of equally entertaining and valid results. It is complicated to achieve because there are several "switches" to turn on or off in proper combination, but the tools are there for people who want to invest the time in learning how to use them.

Some other games with which I am familiar choose to provide single-switch "modes" to produce a variety of results. However, the inner workings of the switch are buried within the code and there is no precise definition of what the mode means. Therefore, one does not know if the mode produces the desired outcome or something else entirely.

I prefer the OOTP method where I can tune the results with various options. My success and satisfaction will be linked to the amount of time that I am willing to invest in experimentation and research.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by ukhotstove

Most importantly though OOTP as given me a chance to make some good friends, friends who will always be welcome at my household if they were ever passing, so to me OOTP is well worth the money so gets a top rating from me.

I'll keep that in mind. A good friend and colleague just retired and he did most of the international work. The resulting gap may get me a trip over there in the next year or so.

I feel the same. If anyone came to Toronto and I was in town it would be a blast to meet for a pint or two.