Noticing issues with hometown player goal

[ra7c7er]

The owner of my team wants a hometown player. The game says the closet player I have to completing the goal is a player that is 173 real world miles from my city. I look at my team and notice their are 6 players on my team who are closer to my city then the player the game is saying is closest. I also picked up a guy in FA who is closer just to see if it would change the goal. It didn't I go through the rest of the season and it never changes.The guy from 173 miles away is used to against the goal. I didn't fail the goal but that doesn't change the fact that at the end of the season I had 7 players on the team closer then that player.

For reference my team is in Belleville, IL The game says the closest player is from Peoria IL. 173 miles away.

I have players from these cities which are closer

East St. Louis 10 miles (cites actually share a boundary line)
Columbia, IL 15 miles away (two players)
Granite City, IL 29 miles
Edwardsville, IL 39 miles
Alton, IL 45 miles
Smithton, IL 8 miles

I used google maps to get miles. I don't know what the game uses to get distance but there is no way the game should say a city 150+ miles away is closer then 3 cities closer then 25 miles away.

And since I know several people are just going come on and say because I didn't fail the goal I shouldn't worry. That's not the point. The point is the game is asking you to do something the game itself is unable to accurately measure.

[olivertheorem]

I agree, that doesn't make sense. I wonder, how many of those other guys were on the roster at the beginning of the year (out of curiousity).

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

I agree, that doesn't make sense. I wonder, how many of those other guys were on the roster at the beginning of the year (out of curiousity).

All but the one I signed from FA to see if it would change the person the goal was picking.

[Anyone]

I think it's more or less a small cosmetic problem with the way the goal is checked.

The guy from Peoria was close enough to satisfy the owner/game, so once it found him it didn't search for others. If he hadn't been close enough to complete the goal, the game would have kept looking, found one of your closer players, and given you credit for him (I'm guessing).

I'm not saying that's how it ought to work. At the very least, it shouldn't say "closest match" or whatever the syntax is. It should say, "Satisfied: (Name of Peoria guy)."

Ideally it would actually give the closest match, but I think that's a very small issue, at least if it were changed to say "satisfied" rather than "closest match."

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by Anyone

I think it's more or less a small cosmetic problem with the way the goal is checked.

The guy from Peoria was close enough to satisfy the owner/game, so once it found him it didn't search for others. If he hadn't been close enough to complete the goal, the game would have kept looking, found one of your closer players, and given you credit for him (I'm guessing).

I'm not saying that's how it ought to work. At the very least, it shouldn't say "closest match" or whatever the syntax is. It should say, "Satisfied: (Name of Peoria guy)."

Ideally it would actually give the closest match, but I think that's a very small issue, at least if it were changed to say "satisfied" rather than "closest match."

I should have been more specific. I didn't get the successful answer. I got the "you tried answer". So I didn't fail it but it wasn't a success either. I agree it's somewhat cosmetic but if they are going to keep the hometown player thing a goal they need to make sure whatever mapping they use works properly. Also the guy from Peoria was already on my team when the goal was given to me so the game WANTED a player closer. I acquired one player that was closer and already had 6 others on the team. At no point should the game have said Peoria is the closest "hometown" player in the first place.

[olivertheorem]

Just guessing, but perhaps the game starts the check at max radius X and stops at the first guy within that radius? As opposed to starting in your town and moving out until it reaches radius X.

[TLB1975]

Fully agree with what you have pointed out. I'm having my own challenges with the manager goals. Some of them, quite frankly, make no sense. I'll give an example.

I'm playing as the Pirates, it's 8/4/2020. I trade last year at the deadline for then 32yr old SP Andrew Cashner from the Padres (now 33, turning 34 in September). He was under contract for the current 2020 season at $10.8M and is a FA after. Both his national and local popularity are insignificant. Being I'm the Pirates, I am budget constrained and have several young players that a bigger priority would be extending them past their arbitration years. My owner has set a goal that I resign Cashner. And what does Cashner want - 5yrs, $105M. To me, this goal makes no sense. In a partial yr last year with me, Cashner went 9-3 with a 3.35ERA and a 1.7 war. Full season, 14-10 3.28 ERA, 144K's/60BB's, 3.3WAR. Why would a "penny-pincher" owner want me to sink $100+M into a 34yr old, recently acquired, above avg starter?

[Hoiles]

I got the hometown player goal in my first season as the Pirates. The team already has someone from the exact city (Walker) but in the owner goals screen it notes someone from Michigan (Matt Thornton, acquired by trade). I haven't finished the year yet so I have no idea what's the owner's going to say.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

I got the hometown player goal in my first season as the Pirates. The team already has someone from the exact city (Walker) but in the owner goals screen it notes someone from Michigan (Matt Thornton, acquired by trade). I haven't finished the year yet so I have no idea what's the owner's going to say.

Originally Posted by olivertheorem

Just guessing, but perhaps the game starts the check at max radius X and stops at the first guy within that radius? As opposed to starting in your town and moving out until it reaches radius X.

Perhaps the game is starting from farthest out and going in. That would be a clear programming error by the devs though and something you'd think beta testers would have noticed.

[Anyone]

Since you didn't get the "success" answer it's not cosmetic. If you'd gotten the "success" answer and it just didn't credit you for the player who best fit the goal, that would just be cosmetic. Since it denied you full credit, this is a significant error.

Owners' goals are a kind of fun idea, but they need to refine the programming to fix bugs like the one you fell victim to here the problem with and so they make more sense given the owner's personality.

This in no way justifies the bug and your not getting credit, but I'd guess if you'd gotten rid of Kirk House (who I'm guessing is the Peoria guy) the game would have looked again and found one of your closer players and given you credit. You shouldn't have had to do that to get credit, not at all; but it would be interesting to see what it would have done had you done that.

As it is, the system is buggy. I play with "cannot be fired" checked. If I didn't, I might disable owner goals until they iron out bugs like this one.

[dward1]

the owner goals and the team personality stuff seems to be very buggy. lots of players won't sign for teams based on a manager temperament, players will basically mutiny based on unnamed instigators that we have to then sleuth around to find out, players will react poorly when a prospect gets traded, and the owner goals seem way too specific. why would the owner care if I improve one certain position? I like the idea of them, but think they should be much rarer and every team shouldn't have 4-5. there should be a general one for season expectation, a long-term one and then a few hands-on owners might want specific balances at the end of the season.

[The Game]

Where was House from? Peoria? Wait til next years draft and see if someone is closer? Anyone in the minor leagues from Belleville? And you should be fired for having anyone from Belleville on your team. I lived there briefly 2007-2009. Hated it.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by The Game

Where was House from? Peoria? Wait til next years draft and see if someone is closer? Anyone in the minor leagues from Belleville? And you should be fired for having anyone from Belleville on your team. I lived there briefly 2007-2009. Hated it.

Ha, I live there now and hate it. At least you know without looking at a map how much closer all the other cities are then Peoria to belleville.

It passed me on the goal with the guy from Peoria so it didn't roll over to the next year but I'm going to keep some close players just in case the goal pops up again to see what happens.

[BMD]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

Fully agree with what you have pointed out. I'm having my own challenges with the manager goals. Some of them, quite frankly, make no sense. I'll give an example.

I'm playing as the Pirates, it's 8/4/2020. I trade last year at the deadline for then 32yr old SP Andrew Cashner from the Padres (now 33, turning 34 in September). He was under contract for the current 2020 season at $10.8M and is a FA after. Both his national and local popularity are insignificant. Being I'm the Pirates, I am budget constrained and have several young players that a bigger priority would be extending them past their arbitration years. My owner has set a goal that I resign Cashner. And what does Cashner want - 5yrs, $105M. To me, this goal makes no sense. In a partial yr last year with me, Cashner went 9-3 with a 3.35ERA and a 1.7 war. Full season, 14-10 3.28 ERA, 144K's/60BB's, 3.3WAR. Why would a "penny-pincher" owner want me to sink $100+M into a 34yr old, recently acquired, above avg starter?

I like the fact that owner demands do not always make perfect sense. In real life, do you always know why your boss tells you to do something? If you do not already, imagine your boss is a very powerful man, probably a billionaire, and someone who is not accustomed to having their orders questioned. When I get a demand like the one above I imagine a situation where the owner's wife is possibly friends with Cashner's wife. During the games, they sit in the owners box drinking wine a chatting. The reason he wants him resigned is too keep his wife happy (or maybe to keep her from bothering him during the game ). Or maybe Cashner has agreed to start doing commercials for one of his business associates. Or better yet, keep it Pittsburgh specific and imagine Cashner has agreed to do some commercials for Seven Springs in the coming off season .

My point is, not everyone in the organization has the same agenda. The GM and manager often have different agendas. Adding a owner into the mix who may or may not have his own hidden agenda is fun. If the owner's demand always fell in line with what you were planning on doing anyway - win more games, upgrade obviously weak positions, resign core players in their primes - this feature would not be a challenge.

As for the OP, as much as I am truly enjoying this feature, yes it needs a lot of fine tuning. I have faith though it will eventually get where it should be as long as we keep questioning these ones where the the mechanics just don't seem to work as far as how to complete the task. I doubt this will get to where it needs to be in patches alone. It will probably be future version that finally gets it right.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by BMD

I like the fact that owner demands do not always make perfect sense. In real life, do you always know why your boss tells you to do something? If you do not already, imagine your boss is a very powerful man, probably a billionaire, and someone who is not accustomed to having their orders questioned. When I get a demand like the one above I imagine a situation where the owner's wife is possibly friends with Cashner's wife. During the games, they sit in the owners box drinking wine a chatting. The reason he wants him resigned is too keep his wife happy (or maybe to keep her from bothering him during the game ). Or maybe Cashner has agreed to start doing commercials for one of his business associates. Or better yet, keep it Pittsburgh specific and imagine Cashner has agreed to do some commercials for Seven Springs in the coming off season .

My point is, not everyone in the organization has the same agenda. The GM and manager often have different agendas. Adding a owner into the mix who may or may not have his own hidden agenda is fun. If the owner's demand always fell in line with what you were planning on doing anyway - win more games, upgrade obviously weak positions, resign core players in their primes - this feature would not be a challenge.

As for the OP, as much as I am truly enjoying this feature, yes it needs a lot of fine tuning. I have faith though it will eventually get where it should be as long as we keep questioning these ones where the the mechanics just don't seem to work as far as how to complete the task. I doubt this will get to where it needs to be in patches alone. It will probably be future version that finally gets it right.

I agree with nearly everything you say except the last part.

If the game isn't properly mapping cities then hometown players goal shouldn't be in the game. You're basically saying it's ok to put in half working features just to show them off so long as they fix them later. If this were any other developer and any other game the exact opposite would be said. Look at any other game in recent history. They get skewered for non-working features. Their is NO reason OOTP should be given a pass.

If you're game can't properly map cities and distances then a feature using mapping cities shouldn't be in the game. It doesn't hurt the game at all to take that one specific goal out of the game right now make it right and patch it back in later.

[BMD]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

I agree with nearly everything you say except the last part.

If the game isn't properly mapping cities then hometown players goal shouldn't be in the game. You're basically saying it's ok to put in half working features just to show them off so long as they fix them later. If this were any other developer and any other game the exact opposite would be said. Look at any other game in recent history. They get skewered for non-working features. Their is NO reason OOTP should be given a pass.

If you're game can't properly map cities and distances then a feature using mapping cities shouldn't be in the game. It doesn't hurt the game at all to take that one specific goal out of the game right now make it right and patch it back in later.

I am not saying we should be patient for the home town issue to be fixed in a later version. It should be patched. I am saying it will take several versions to really get this feature to work to its full potential because I am sure there are other demands that are not working right that we have not even realized yet are not working correctly. The only way this works though is if we continue to question the ones that are not working correctly as you did in the opening post.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by BMD

I like the fact that owner demands do not always make perfect sense. In real life, do you always know why your boss tells you to do something? If you do not already, imagine your boss is a very powerful man, probably a billionaire, and someone who is not accustomed to having their orders questioned. When I get a demand like the one above I imagine a situation where the owner's wife is possibly friends with Cashner's wife. During the games, they sit in the owners box drinking wine a chatting. The reason he wants him resigned is too keep his wife happy (or maybe to keep her from bothering him during the game ). Or maybe Cashner has agreed to start doing commercials for one of his business associates. Or better yet, keep it Pittsburgh specific and imagine Cashner has agreed to do some commercials for Seven Springs in the coming off season .

My point is, not everyone in the organization has the same agenda. The GM and manager often have different agendas. Adding a owner into the mix who may or may not have his own hidden agenda is fun. If the owner's demand always fell in line with what you were planning on doing anyway - win more games, upgrade obviously weak positions, resign core players in their primes - this feature would not be a challenge.

Thanks for your thoughts.

I have no issue with the owner having a different agenda than a GM/Manager. I think the next gen of this feature needs to include dialogue. Give me a chance to respond to his/her goals. You want me to make up some scenario (i'll give you credit for the Seven Springs reference!) to justify it but no GM would skip over the conversation to explain the ramifications of signing Cashner or the reality of what his demands are. Does my "penny-pincher" owner want me to spend $105M on this goal or was he hoping I can resign him at some discount? Does he really want me to give a 5yr deal? What if the goal said "resign Cashner to a 3yr deal or less?"

As currently constructed, these goals are orders and in the case of Cashner, completely unrealistic and counter to a "penny-pincher" owner.

[rpriske]

I am playing as the Brooklyn Superbas and I signed a player from Brooklyn, NY... no status change.

[ra7c7er]

Originally Posted by TLB1975

Thanks for your thoughts.

I have no issue with the owner having a different agenda than a GM/Manager. I think the next gen of this feature needs to include dialogue. Give me a chance to respond to his/her goals. You want me to make up some scenario (i'll give you credit for the Seven Springs reference!) to justify it but no GM would skip over the conversation to explain the ramifications of signing Cashner or the reality of what his demands are. Does my "penny-pincher" owner want me to spend $105M on this goal or was he hoping I can resign him at some discount? Does he really want me to give a 5yr deal? What if the goal said "resign Cashner to a 3yr deal or less?"

As currently constructed, these goals are orders and in the case of Cashner, completely unrealistic and counter to a "penny-pincher" owner.

I don't want to get into the specifics of changing goals that are working (no matter how misguided) but you have to remember the owner may not know know much a player is asking for. The owner just says I want this guy to player here. He doesn't care about intangible aspects of keeping the guy. If the guy is a potential HOF'er the owner isn't going to care about money, even a penny pincher, he wants that guy wearing the teams hat when he gets to The Hall.

[TLB1975]

Originally Posted by ra7c7er

I don't want to get into the specifics of changing goals that are working (no matter how misguided) but you have to remember the owner may not know know much a player is asking for. The owner just says I want this guy to player here. He doesn't care about intangible aspects of keeping the guy. If the guy is a potential HOF'er the owner isn't going to care about money, even a penny pincher, he wants that guy wearing the teams hat when he gets to The Hall.

Your right in that in OOTP the owner does not know how much the player is asking for. And that IMO is the problem.

You provided a reasonable scenario that could explaining how a penny pinching owner would not care about money since he wants that guy wearing his teams hat in the hall. Quite understandable. However, I can't come up with any scenario where an owner would have no idea what a player is asking for in a contract and that is what is currently asked of me.

This disconnect between owners and Manager/GM's existed for every version before but did not have the consequences attached to it now with Owner Goals, especially if I chose to play without can't be fired.