Unless this is changed, I am not likely to be buying OOTP 2006

[Malleus Dei]

I know, I know...I shouldn't start this thread. I'm even breaking my own suggestion.

But right now I am appalled and aghast, and am very unlikely to be buying OOTP 2006.

Why?

http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=118672

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

So in looking through screenshots and league reports, I don't see anything along the lines of team loyalty, desire for winning team, consistency, popularity, injury rating, and the like.

I can certainly understand leaving out clutch performance and team leadership skills, but data regarding who a player prefers to sign with, how likely they are to be injured, and how much a team's popularity would suffer for trading away all of their popular players was pretty important stuff that added quite a bit of depth to the game beyond whether player X's contact rating was higher than player Y.

Do these ratings still exist, possibly as hidden values that can be referenced in various game interactions? If not, then I do not understand why they were taken out.

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

They are there, just hidden... you should get a sense for the ratings through the news/messages on the players.

The existence of hidden ratings will completely kill any historical rosters. They are DOA in OOTP 2006. Hidden ratings mean that you while you think you are creating Greg Maddux, you may actually be creating Jose Lima. While hidden ratings won't affect fictional and hobbit leagues, the existence of hidden ratings makes it impossible to accurately create historical players, which therefore makes it impossible to accurately create historical rosters.

Every single player rating needs to be visible and editable. Period. I literally cannot imagine what everyone on the inside was thinking to let this thing get off the ground, let alone allow it through. Someone claimed the other day that the beta testers represented all of the OOTP world. That's clearly total nonsense, because just so far I have seen three deal-breaking issues for the historical gamer: no in-game expansion, which kills long-term historical simming; no managerial record tracking, which kills the managerial aspects of historical gaming; and now, hidden ratings, which render the creation and play of historical rosters completely impossible.

What were you people *thinking*?

[Draft Dodger]

It's eight days to release.

For those eight days, I'm asking you all to be cool.

No more "let-bash-the-game-before-we-even-see-it" threads.

No more "let's take cheap shots at SI" threads.

No more wild speculation threads.

No more "let's compare OOTP2006, unseen, to this other game" threads.

No craziness.

No lunacy.

I'm asking you all to be cool and chill out for eight days. Those of you who are on meds, please make sure you take all of them. The rest of you, relax and join me in some beers.

Cool cool cool.

Can you handle it?

[OakDragon]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

I know, I know...I shouldn't start this thread. I'm even breaking my own suggestion.

But right now I am appalled and aghast, and am very unlikely to be buying OOTP 2006.

Why?

The existence of hidden ratings will completely kill any historical rosters. They are DOA in OOTP 2006. Hidden ratings mean that you while you think you are creating Greg Maddux, you may actually be creating Jose Lima. While hidden ratings won't affect fictional and hobbit leagues, the existence of hidden ratings makes it impossible to accurately create historical players, which therefore makes it impossible to accurately create historical rosters.

Ooooh, excellent point, MD! This does seem to me to be critical, too, though I will probably not be interested in historical leagues and will still buy the game. I can see alot of people being really disappointed by this though!

[WrightWing]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

It's eight days to release.

For those eight days, I'm asking you all to be cool.

No more "let-bash-the-game-before-we-even-see-it" threads.

No more "let's take cheap shots at SI" threads.

No more wild speculation threads.

No more "let's compare OOTP2006, unseen, to this other game" threads.

No craziness.

No lunacy.

I'm asking you all to be cool and chill out for eight days. Those of you who are on meds, please make sure you take all of them. The rest of you, relax and join me in some beers.

Cool cool cool.

Can you handle it?

His points, however, remain...

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by OakDragon

Ooooh, excellent point, MD! This does seem to me to be critical, too, though I will probably not be interested in historical leagues and will still by the game. I can see alot of people being really disappointed by this though!

It goes *way* beyond disappointment.

This is the worst OOTP design decision since "Let's take out the ability to print anything!" decision back in the OOTP 3 days. Hidden and uneditable ratings? The mind reels.

[Davey Eckstein]

I don't really care, so meh. +1/IBTL

[LeiterFanatic]

Hidden ratings mean that you while you think you are creating Greg Maddux, you may actually be creating Jose Lima.

To me, this has always been the case with OOTP. Players do not always become the real-life players they were. There are threads and threads on this where many people (yourself included, I think) say, "OOTP is a dynamic simuation. If you want perfect replication, play DMB." I think this is just an extension of it into OOTP06.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

His points, however, remain...

As I clearly posted at the top "I know, I know...I shouldn't start this thread. I'm even breaking my own suggestion."

But this is critical, and exceptional. No more historical rosters/play? OMG.

[Shaner99]

I could care less. I'm not a programmer or anything but I would think this could easily be added in?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by LeiterFanatic

Hidden ratings mean that you while you think you are creating Greg Maddux, you may actually be creating Jose Lima.

To me, this has always been the case with OOTP. Players do not always become the real-life players they were.

You've missed the point completely. This is not about player *development*. This is about being unable to replicate developed historical players as they were.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Shaner99

I could care less.

And all of the other people who don't use historical roster sets will agree with you on that.

But for those of us who do, this is terrible.

[WrightWing]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

As I clearly posted at the top "I know, I know...I shouldn't start this thread. I'm even breaking my own suggestion.

I meant your points still stand, Mal.

They are well worth breaking your own suggestion. This is a deal-breaker for me as well if there isn't a work-around...

[GForce]

It does not appear that real game-influencing ratings are hidden. Not really sure why this is so damaging. Signing preferences? Popularity impact? These things are essential to be known?

If I'm missing something, please enlighten me.

GH

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by WrightWing

His points, however, remain...

his points are flawed.
what ratings are we talking about? leadership? clutch performance? consistency? is the argument really that no longer being able to edit those will change an identically rated player from Maddux to Lima? Seriously? You can't even edit popularity in 6.5, and most (all?) of the others are difficult to edit as it is.

basically, he's doing what he asked others not to do in yet another "look at me" desperate grab for attention. he's talking out of his ass without thinking.

[Bears5122]

I'm kind of torn on this. In one sense, it adds to the game to not know how these factors effect a certain player. On the other hand, it really hurts real rosters which I primarily play with.

[attackemu]

Well, if the difference in the game between Greg Maddux and Jose Lima is their team leadership rating, there's a way bigger problem afoot than hidden ratings. I would hope that those hidden ratings are so insignificant toward on-field performance that it doesn't matter whether you can see them or not. Besides that, any type of historical assigning of that type of "make-up" stuff is going to be 99.9% based on speculation anyway, and is probably just as likely to be correct if edited by players as it is randomly assigned by the AI. I guess it will matter if you want to make Tony Gwynn have a high loyalty rating so he won't switch teams or whatever, but a dealbreaker? Nah.

I do agree, though, that every rating in the game should be visible and editable in principle. With the ability to toggle off the ratings you don't want to see. But since the ratings that are hidden are so insanely unimportant, I can't help but think this is much ado about nothing.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

And all of the other people who don't use historical roster sets will agree with you on that.

But for those of us who do, this is terrible.

yahtzee! I've just had an idea! that must be what is screwing up my 6.5 historical league. I think Tony Lazzeri's secondary ratings are way off. LOL, I've got his clutch performance as GREAT instead of normal. I've also got to get his needs winner rating fixed. I don't know how I've been surviving with such historically inaccurate ratings until now. TIA.

[OakDragon]

Injury rating and consistency will effect a player's career length and resulting totals.

[KWhit]

It seems to me that these are all completely subjective ratings. It's not like it's obvious what a historical player's consistency or clutch performance is.

[andymac]

This thread is going to be fun!!