Are you ok with OOTP11 not having any more patches?

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

IMO, MH seemed to lose interest in OOTP11, once it was released to the public. He repeatedly scaled down his plans for post-release patches. I, for one, expressed my disappointment. Did no good. OOTP is sometimes compared to Puresim, and Markus to Shaun. OOTP, IMO, is a much better product. But Shaun (as far as I can tell) is much less patient with outstanding bugs.

When I discovered a few bugs in Puresim and mentioned them I actually received e-mail from Shaun about them. That caught me off guard.

He did fix them although they weren't exactly major issues.

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by pstrickert

IMO, MH seemed to lose interest in OOTP11, once it was released to the public. He repeatedly scaled down his plans for post-release patches. I, for one, expressed my disappointment. Did no good. OOTP is sometimes compared to Puresim, and Markus to Shaun. OOTP, IMO, is a much better product. But Shaun (as far as I can tell) is much less patient with outstanding bugs.

It pains me to agree but I think this post is probably pretty accurate. It does seem that, on occasion, Markus could be a little more sensitive to the complaints that are aired, here on the forum. This is a great, bordering on fantastic game. It would be a shame to leave this product sitting at 95% when 99% seems to be achievable. I don't believe "perfect" is a realistic goal. I do think that constant improvement should be an imperative instead of just a marketing slogan. In case anyone is interested I am also mildly disappointed that there has not been a final patch to address what seems to be, for some players, a close to game breaking bug. I haven't seen it, but if it exists then it should be addressed.

[Malleus Dei]

I go way back with Shaun to pre-Puresim days, and he has always been very good about bugs.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by slic1149

It would be a shame to leave this product sitting at 95% when 99% seems to be achievable.

Exactly! And that's what we're trying to do!

[spitfire]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

When I discovered a few bugs in Puresim and mentioned them I actually received e-mail from Shaun about them. That caught me off guard.

He did fix them although they weren't exactly major issues.

Shaun has been very aggressive in chasing down bugs and even making major changes in the game to address requests from customers. At one time Markus used to strike me as being reasonably similar (I even have an e-mail from him from 2002 answering an early question I had about the game!), but the last few years that seems to have diminished. Maybe he's gotten tired of working on the game and is more excited by new projects like the on-line version. Impossible to know from the outside what's really going on, but that's the impression I get. Who knows? Couldn't blame him if he was a little burned out by OOTP.

Unfortunately, Shaun announced a day or so back that the current version of Puresim will be the last one he does. Sez he's moving in other directions now and has dropped plans for PS4, which was to include a pitch-by-pitch mode. You can read all about it at PureSim 4 Canceled - Sorry - Wolverine Studios

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Exactly! And that's what we're trying to do!

My disagreement was never based on a desire to "not' see existing bugs squashed. My concern was based around asking Markus to just kill bugs and not add features, then attempt to release that version as OOTP12, I am still convinced that would be a terrible mistake. It is unfortunate that I didn't make that clearer in my OP in this thread.

[spitfire]

Originally Posted by slic1149

My disagreement was never based on a desire to "not' see existing bugs squashed. My concern was based around asking Markus to just kill bugs and not add features, then attempt to release that version as OOTP12, I am still convinced that would be a terrible mistake. It is unfortunate that I didn't make that clearer in my OP in this thread.

The idea of a bugs-only release is something that has been floated in the forum for a couple of years. Nice thought, but not realistic from a business standpoint, as you and others have pointed out over that period. However, it would still be nice to see a release that was maybe lighter on the new whiz-bang stuff and concentrated more on stomping bugs. Not one or the other, just tilting the ratio more towards consolidating the code than adding new features.

One suspects that as more and more new stuff IS added to the existing program, it might get harder and harder to go back and make some of the fundamental changes that could be needed with things like the pitcher substitution problem. In other words, as the house gets more stories added, it gets harder to repair the foundation without the whole thing collapsing. I like to hope we haven't reached a "point of no return" yet and that some of the lingering stuff can be cured. Doesn't sound like it would be easy (if it were it would have been done already) and I guess if most of the existing customers don't care about the bugs, there isn't much incentive to finally get to grips with them. Oh well.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by spitfire

Shaun has been very aggressive in chasing down bugs and even making major changes in the game to address requests from customers. At one time Markus used to strike me as being reasonably similar (I even have an e-mail from him from 2002 answering an early question I had about the game!), but the last few years that seems to have diminished. Maybe he's gotten tired of working on the game and is more excited by new projects like the on-line version. Impossible to know from the outside what's really going on, but that's the impression I get. Who knows? Couldn't blame him if he was a little burned out by OOTP.

Unfortunately, Shaun announced a day or so back that the current version of Puresim will be the last one he does. Sez he's moving in other directions now and has dropped plans for PS4, which was to include a pitch-by-pitch mode. You can read all about it at PureSim 4 Canceled - Sorry - Wolverine Studios

Shaun also had a day job.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by spitfire

The idea of a bugs-only release is something that has been floated in the forum for a couple of years. Nice thought, but not realistic from a business standpoint, as you and others have pointed out over that period. However, it would still be nice to see a release that was maybe lighter on the new whiz-bang stuff and concentrated more on stomping bugs. Not one or the other, just tilting the ratio more towards consolidating the code than adding new features.

One suspects that as more and more new stuff IS added to the existing program, it might get harder and harder to go back and make some of the fundamental changes that could be needed with things like the pitcher substitution problem. In other words, as the house gets more stories added, it gets harder to repair the foundation without the whole thing collapsing. I like to hope we haven't reached a "point of no return" yet and that some of the lingering stuff can be cured. Doesn't sound like it would be easy (if it were it would have been done already) and I guess if most of the existing customers don't care about the bugs, there isn't much incentive to finally get to grips with them. Oh well.

And with each new feature new bugs are created.

[slic1149]

Originally Posted by spitfire

The idea of a bugs-only release is something that has been floated in the forum for a couple of years. Nice thought, but not realistic from a business standpoint, as you and others have pointed out over that period. However, it would still be nice to see a release that was maybe lighter on the new whiz-bang stuff and concentrated more on stomping bugs. Not one or the other, just tilting the ratio more towards consolidating the code than adding new features.

One suspects that as more and more new stuff IS added to the existing program, it might get harder and harder to go back and make some of the fundamental changes that could be needed with things like the pitcher substitution problem. In other words, as the house gets more stories added, it gets harder to repair the foundation without the whole thing collapsing. I like to hope we haven't reached a "point of no return" yet and that some of the lingering stuff can be cured. Doesn't sound like it would be easy (if it were it would have been done already) and I guess if most of the existing customers don't care about the bugs, there isn't much incentive to finally get to grips with them. Oh well.

Both your suggestion and your concerns are valid. It is difficult to either understand or attempt to read Markus's intentions. There is certainly a possibility after literally a dozen different iterations of the game that he is getting edgy to take it in a different direction or getting bored with trying to detirmine what new features he needs to add this year to both keep existing customers happy and still attract new buyers. That is a fine line that I would certainly not want to walk every year. As I have shared throughout this thread, my style of play apparantly doesn't attract many insects. So, until that occurs I suspect I will always be more concerned with new additions to the program as opposed to the tightening of a program that is already working great for me as is. Once again Markus has decisions to make in that regard.

I will make one somewhat negative comment about the way the company seems to be interacting with it's customers. I do wish that Markus would spend a little more time on the forums. I suspect he is lurking more than we might think, but his silence, for sometimes protracted periods of time, can be deafening. It does seem to me that over the past few years there has been less of a small corporation dealing one on one with its customers and more of a big corporation mentality that has cropped up. That is disappointing for those of us who remember when things were a little different. MD, has stated forcefully the need for more bug extermination. There is some chatter from several long term players that are looking for a more robust customer service program. All of this does indicate that there is a danger of a deepening problem unless the company develops a better process for communication with its customers. If a bug can't be killed, tell us that nothing will be done and explain why. If bugs are not being squashed because of a lack of effort then I believe most of us who have invested literally hundreds of dollars in this product would find that unacceptable. I do not believe that is the case but sometimes silence is somewhat less than golden. Perhaps that time is getting closer than Markus would like to admit.

[Killing Time]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

And with each new feature new bugs are created.

Meanwhile the old ones remained unfixed.

[Mitch McQuick]

As a 1st time OOTPer (blinded to the historical evolution of the game that many of you are privy too) whose chief interest is simply simulating the current MLB+MiLB season (and perhaps the next one), I am primarily concerned with flaws that affect the realism of the game play. The ER/RBI/occasionally-charging-a-run-to-the-wrong-pitcher official scorer mistakes bother me as much as anyone in here, but if an OOTP genie granted me one magic wish I would use that wish to improve the AI managers' use of their bullpen. I play(ed) out all of my controlled-team's games pitch-by-pitch, and I go(went) so far as to take over the opposing team's in-game-substitutions because I don't like the decisions the AI manager makes regarding pitching changes (I try to make the my games as difficult as possible to win by ensuring that my opponents always have their best options on the mound, and at the plate for that matter). My wish basically involves an overhaul of the algorithms the AI managers use to make pitching changes.

As I also take GM control over all teams in the league to control roster movement, lineups, and set the pitching roles of every team (I feel that I can more realistically simulate roster movement, role, and starting lineups than any AI GM can), for some I'll set only a single pitcher as a set-up reliever in spot #1 (and set his hook as reliever slidebar setting to the slowest possible) and leave the remaining set-up fields blank as I want that guy to act as a virtual 8th-inning-only closer for that team who is rarely hooked unless a crucial lefty-lefty or righty-righty situation presents. In the games I auto-play which don't involve the one team for which I act as both GM and field manager, the AI manager just about always brings the 1 set-up guy to start the 8th in a save-situation (1- to 3-run lead) if the starter's gone, which is exactly what I want the AI manager to do when the primary set-up guy is rested. However, after that set-up guy faces his first batter, things often start to go seriously wrong. If the AI manager determines that the set-up guy I chose (based upon season or recent stats performance) isn't the best man for the job (via his logic), he'll hook that guy immediately even if he throws from the same side as the new reliever and even if he retired the batter (in spite of my slow hook setting). In modern day baseball that would never happen barring an injury. Then other times the AI manager will decide to go with an alternate-handed middle reliever then or later in the inning to match up with an opposite-handed hitter (which sometimes does make sense if there are runners on base or the tying/winning run is at the dish), but after this pitcher has faced a batter or two the AI manager will decide to change pitchers again with the save opporunity still in effect to get the righty-righty or lefty-lefty matchup and will often pick a mop-up reliever since there are no more middle relievers available (or the AI manager has decided that the mopper-upper is better suited to pitch then). The problem there is the AI manager is picking a guy I don't want pitching for that team in an important situation and putting him in just about the most important situation there is for a reliever. That's a situation where instead the AI manager needs to be going to the closer in the 8th inning, if rested (as he most always is when that situation has played out). So that's my chief complaint with OOTP11, the inaccurate use of relievers in the 8th inning of a modern-day game where a save situation is in effect. [A separate bullpen issue I've seen discussed in here is some relievers hardly ever getting used- here the AI managers should be looking at who is most rested among the MR and who's gone the longest without an appearance and be sure those guys get some work just as a real-life human MLB manager would].

Having typed all that, there's no way on earth that I would expect the programmers of OOTP to know this stuff (or about when to award an RBI or UER or ER), and I recognize that is important for me to impart this wisdom to them if I want to see this corrected pre-release of OOTP12. Going one step further, I would guess that if that genie granted each forum member one wish, most would pick something different based upon how each plays the game. So if we want our bugs to go away, we have to report them in a way that people who don't watch 1% of the baseball that we do can understand what's wrong and figure out a way to get those matters corrected. Perhaps some of you have tried this approach before unsuccessfully, but I would recommend that you each pick your one wish (or two) and submit a technical support ticket explaining your concern clearly as possible and suggest some mechanisms of potentially fixing the issue. And the more of us that wind up reporting the same wish, the more likely that bug will get fixed, at least theoretically typing.

[BusterKing]

Originally Posted by Mitch McQuick

So if we want our bugs to go away, we have to report them in a way that people who don't watch 1% of the baseball that we do can understand what's wrong and figure out a way to get those matters corrected. Perhaps some of you have tried this approach before unsuccessfully, but I would recommend that you each pick your one wish (or two) and submit a technical support ticket explaining your concern clearly as possible and suggest some mechanisms of potentially fixing the issue. And the more of us that wind up reporting the same wish, the more likely that bug will get fixed, at least theoretically typing.

They have gone by means of support tickets and you must provide them with the actual bug for them to file it as an issue.

They don't see the poor managing AI as a bug so good luck with getting that fixed, we've been mentioned it for how long now... version 1?

Unfortunately the OOTP series don't seem to care about quality anymore, it's more about quantity of games they can sell.

OOTP is fun to play but don't expect scoring accuracy anymore, look at it as an arcade game, not a true simulation.

[DWK]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

And with each new feature new bugs are created.

You hit the nail right on the head.

[clamel]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

They have gone by means of support tickets and you must provide them with the actual bug for them to file it as an issue.

They don't see the poor managing AI as a bug so good luck with getting that fixed, we've been mentioned it for how long now... version 1?

Unfortunately the OOTP series don't seem to care about quality anymore, it's more about quantity of games they can sell.

OOTP is fun to play but don't expect scoring accuracy anymore, look at it as an arcade game, not a true simulation.

So what game should one jump over to for getting that true simulation ?

[BMW]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

I love OOTP. That being said, I expect and am doing my best to encourage excellence from it. I also love my wife, my children, my grandchildren, and my dogs (and even my BMW as well!) but I expect and encourage excellence from all of them too.

I am flattered.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by BMW

I am flattered.

You shouldn't admit publicly that I own you.

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by Killing Time

The only thing that DOES help get anything fixed is what you deliberately mislabel as "forum bullying."

No. You can harass Markus for his failings all you want and sometimes get a response. However, telling other customers that they lack intelligence because they don't agree with you is poor form and will rightfully result in you being ignored at best and punished for bullying and trolling at worst.

Again: wailing publically about unspecific discontent you have with the game will only make you frustrated and make Markus want to avoid the forums because they are stressful and unproductive. Hundred post rants don't really hold his attention, either.

It's Markus' company and he does what he wants to do, but if you can bring specific issues to his attention and clearly explain why they are negatively impacting the game, you'll have much better luck. If they are exceedingly minor matters that would take a heck of a lot of time to address, cut your losses.

[Malleus Dei]

Nutlaw: First, you're wrong. Second, you're wrong. Third, you're wrong.

Markus knows about the legacy bugs. If enough people care about them, we can generate enough momentum here to get them fixed (see printing, baseball cards, and mass select). The problem is that not enough people here give a damn about OOTP actually having accurate stats (see poll). You don't like what I attribute that to, and I don't care what you think because not only are you part of the problem, but you also hypocritically engage in exactly the same tactics that you object to in others (see earlier posts in this thread).

Now please go bother someone else and stop trying to prevent us from doing all that we can to make the game better. Thank you.

[endgame]

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ance-vent.html

An interesting retrospective. Oddly though, I couldn't turn up earned runs, RBI, runs batted in, scoring, or such in any search through that thread. Regardless, through its twists, turns, and usual detours, it's a distraction worth some merit. May take your minds off one another, for a bit at least.