Tourneys/training

[HiDesertAce]

I really hope training of players will carry over to tourneys in the next version. The compositon of teams that do well in OOTP 20 tourney's are very similar at each level. The same thing will happen in 21 if training doesn't carry over.

[bailey]

I don't see why allowing training would change anything. I'll make a prediction that training won't be allowed in tournaments NOR in the regular game.

[dkgo]

At least in the open tournaments for top teams, not allowing training means you actually have to make decisions and see some different teams instead of just being able to play whoever you want perfectly anywhere on the field.

I'd rather there be no training anywhere.

[moalkha]

Originally Posted by dkgo

At least in the open tournaments for top teams, not allowing training means you actually have to make decisions and see some different teams instead of just being able to play whoever you want perfectly anywhere on the field.

I'd rather there be no training anywhere.

Same for me. After playing tournaments without training I really like it better.

[Warhawk]

Originally Posted by dkgo

At least in the open tournaments for top teams, not allowing training means you actually have to make decisions and see some different teams instead of just being able to play whoever you want perfectly anywhere on the field.

I'd rather there be no training anywhere.

To a point, but when the percentage of single-position players is too high, as I'd say it is now (particularly with historical cards) it arguably reduces the variety of teams since everyone is using the same handful of utility players for depth.

[FancySkunk]

Originally Posted by Warhawk

To a point, but when the percentage of single-position players is too high, as I'd say it is now (particularly with historical cards) it arguably reduces the variety of teams since everyone is using the same handful of utility players for depth.

This right here is my take. It's going to put way too much value on random live players who have a rating at every infield position, like Miguel Rojas (who is my silver and bronze tourney backup INF specifically for that reason). We'd have to be carrying cards of actual backup players, which kind of kills the pure fantasy, build the best team ever idea of perfect team, in my opinion.

Positional training also opens so many cards up to be usable when otherwise they would be stuck in that "awful defender or pure DH" category. A card like the 89 Hugh Duffy is a prime example of it. No one's going to use him in CF with the 46 defense rating, and there are far better uses for your DH slot. Without the ability to train him up as a viable LF option, the card becomes mostly dead on arrival, compared to the current system where he's still usable in the perfect leagues.

[Dogberry99]

When all is said and done, the meta for each format will devolve to a very small number of real options whether training is allowed or not. Training will make some options more viable, but it will also force just as many other cards out of consideration.

[Barmy Fungy-Phipps]

The question is really one of mimetics (as it always is with a baseball simulation). Does this feature seem true to baseball? There are lots of areas where the mimesis has to be fudged a bit for gameplay - having cross-era play is an obvious one, where we ditch the historical accuracy of deadball play in order to get Wee Willie Keeler and Mike Trout on the same field. I'm think there are some ways that adjustment could be improved, but that's another conversation.

The main game (and PT outside tournaments) handles positions in a sensible way - there are underlying skill sets that get basic ratings to establish a talent baseline, and then there is experience at the position, leading into a positional rating which is rapidly gained if the player can be reasonably assumed to have the capacity or equivalent experience. I think that system works great.

In Perfect Team, we are given the chance to collect players and then use them as we see fit, including training them up at alternate positions - except in tournaments, which now have an arbitrary limitation.

If it is about gameplay, I think the way it is currently handled moves away from real mimesis. What happens in the real life version of tournaments, such as the WBC? Players play out of position, and on a regular basis. Why? They are great athletes, and the penalty for playing out of position is actually quite small. Infield positions are broadly similar to each other, after all, and most outfield positions can be picked up quickly as long as the player is reasonably proficient at reading fly balls - a teachable skill that has been taught mid-season on many occasions.

My preference would be for training to be added in for tournaments. At least, so long as it doesn't give the devs too much trouble.

If the coding is a problem (creating database or servers issue or whatever - I'm not an expert on that sort of thing), then I would recommend giving a little more leeway to historical players - any historical player that meets certain playing time bars at a position should be given a minimum of experience there so that can be at least plausibly used there in a tournament.

As a hypothetical, making a 1949 card of Jackie Robinson only capable of playing 2B while a 1953 card of Jackie Robinson can play the full infield doesn't make sense, as a recreation of what baseball is really like. So if that 1949 card isn't going to be allowed to gain experience at other positions when Jackie HAD experience and played and would play other positions, the best solution would be to curate the historical cards so that Jackie (as the example) has experience for positions he could and did play at the very least.

So that Hugh Duffy card would have ratings at all three outfield positions, and possibly infield as well depending on where (and when) the baseline is set for experience at a position. Less need to load up the database with positional rating changes, but something closer to the reality of positional abilities than is currently allowed for.

[dkgo]

Have you studied the difference in performance for two players with the exact same underlying defensive attributes but different positional experience? For all we know the penalty IS quite small

[Barmy Fungy-Phipps]

Yeah, I did a few experiments with training up players out of position. It really hurts the pitchers the first couple of months in the season, but levels out rapidly after that. Anecdotal evidence only, as I didn't control for various factors and a fair bit could be just the random variation. It did happen every season I tried it, for what that's worth.

Based off what I saw, for full seasons, it wasn't a big deal. For tournaments, it isn't worth playing out of position.

[pappyzan]

Not allowing position training is a real turnoff for me, I don't play in that many tourneys because of it. Why allow it in one area of the game and not another?

I really hope it's allowed in tourneys in 21.

[Markus Heinsohn]

It'll be the same as in PT20, it has proven to work well for the majority of users

[daves]

Originally Posted by HiDesertAce

I really hope training of players will carry over to tourneys in the next version. The compositon of teams that do well in OOTP 20 tourney's are very similar at each level. The same thing will happen in 21 if training doesn't carry over.

Don’t go there. There was a poll and OOTP does not deviate from polls even when new data and versions are introduced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ray_Rockwood]

I remember this poll and it was only available for a few days and the results were very close (which indicates there could be a margin of error) and an incredibly small sample size for the amount of players this game has.
Certainly a new poll should be made for the new 2021 game and give players more than a few days to vote and possibly even make it an in game vote. You could have a mission where you put a common live iron card in the set and when completed it locks in your vote. There could be a set for a yes answer and a set for a no answer. The reward would be 10 points and you would be unable to complete both missions, it would be an either or choice.
I never even got to vote, but my vote is that training should be available or at the very least have tournaments where you can use players with already gained training. From what I remember the reason why some people voted against it was because they were afraid people would ruin their regular seasons by training people at different positions. This seams like a silly reason, considering that high defensive players gain training at new positions very fast.

[mcdog512]

Originally Posted by Ray_Rockwood

I remember this poll and it was only available for a few days and the results were very close (which indicates there could be a margin of error) and an incredibly small sample size for the amount of players this game has.
Certainly a new poll should be made for the new 2021 game and give players more than a few days to vote and possibly even make it an in game vote. You could have a mission where you put a common live iron card in the set and when completed it locks in your vote. There could be a set for a yes answer and a set for a no answer. The reward would be 10 points and you would be unable to complete both missions, it would be an either or choice.
I never even got to vote, but my vote is that training should be available or at the very least have tournaments where you can use players with already gained training. From what I remember the reason why some people voted against it was because they were afraid people would ruin their regular seasons by training people at different positions. This seams like a silly reason, considering that high defensive players gain training at new positions very fast.

Vote never was necessary. It's their game and they can make decisions without input from us.


Does every design decision they make need to be a vote?

[Dogberry99]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

Does every design decision they make need to be a vote?

Well, apparently they thought this one did...

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by mcdog512

Does every design decision they make need to be a vote?

No, but for some important things it makes sense to let those decide who play PT. I think this sets us apart from other companies

[dkgo]

From what I remember they basically just wanted to take a quick pulse of what people were feeling to see if there was a big majority who wanted change, since it ended up near 50/50 they decided to just leave things as they were which seems pretty fair.

[daves]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

No, but for some important things it makes sense to let those decide who play PT. I think this sets us apart from other companies

The willingness to adapt and change is what can set a Company apart. OOTP have been updating constantly which makes a difference .

That’s why adding defense training in tournaments, changing weekly schedules, adding an app, adding more bells and whistles can improve the game rather than the same old same old.

These are suggestions by users to help improve the experience. But I am sure you are changing somethings in the next version.

I just would like an updated app back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[QuantaCondor]

For a contrary perspective, I would consider changing the weekly schedule or adding defensive training to tournaments to both be negative changes. Just to break up the echo chamber here.