OOTP 17 Not realistic

kowalskisan · 11-04-2016, 06:43 PM

OOTP 17 is absolutely absurd when it comes to realistic scoring. I've had OOTP versions before, with the last one being OOTP 8, and I've always found the number of hits/runs per game to be pretty realistic, but OOTP 17 does not come close. I've had to restart my seasons a few times because the game makes it ridiculously difficult to set up a league the way I want to. I like to take 32 of the best teams in history and match them up in a tournament or league, and it seems to me that it might be pretty common to do that, or am I just really weird? But no, in order to do this you have to first create a fictional league, then delete the fictional teams and import the historical teams. Then once you have your league you find the the original fictional players have managed to make their way onto the historical teams, so they have to be rooted out before starting play. In the first few iterations of a league I found the scoring to be unrealistic over the course of about a half dozen games and that has persisted now that I have a "good" league. Of the seven games I've played thus far in the league, only one game had a realistic score, the '69 Mets over the '72 Athletics, 3 R 10 H to 2 R 6 H. Here are the other six run and hit totals: '62 Giants over '86 Mets, 9 R 15 H to 6 R 12 H; '39 Yankees over '67 Red Sox, 8 R 15 H to 6 R 14 H; '34 Cardinals over '22 Giants, 14 R 18 H to 11 R 19 H; '54 Indians over '76 Reds, 11 R 15 H to 7 R 13 H; '24 Senators over '48 Indians, 8 R 14 H to 5 R 15 H; and finally '46 Red Sox over '68 Tigers, 16 R 22 H to 5 R 11 H. In seven games I've batted around the lineup in an inning 11 times, and it's not like I an not changing pitchers trying the stem the non-stop hit parade. I've used up to four pitchers in a half inning and usually use up just about all of my bullpen and bench every game. I do realize that the teams have some of the best hitters ever to play the game, but I'm also using some of the best pitchers, i.e. '24 Walter Johnson or '68 Denny McLain. I won't even get into the ridiculous errors in the game's commentary (ball hit down first base line fielded by 3rd baseman, ball in right field corner fielded by center fielder, for example). It seems to me there is zero quality control for this game, very sad and no wonder they are only charging $9.99. My search for a good historical baseball sim continues.

Mariner and Giants Fan · 11-04-2016, 07:05 PM

Your sample of games is so so so tiny as to not be indicative of anything. Try it over half a season you know like hundreds of games before you draw any conclusions that have validity.

kq76 · 11-04-2016, 08:24 PM

You're putting teams of various eras which obviously played in different run environments into a league with its own unknown run environment. Of course you're going to see some strange results. Not to mention the terribly small sample size.

I recommend you look at the "league totals and modifiers" if you want to get certain results.

RchW · 11-04-2016, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kowalskisan

My search for a good historical baseball sim continues.

What others have you tried and how bad were they?

TheMaus2 · 11-04-2016, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariner and Giants Fan

Your sample of games is so so so tiny as to not be indicative of anything. Try it over half a season you know like hundreds of games before you draw any conclusions that have validity.

He did not do the maths

HuachucaThunder · 11-04-2016, 08:51 PM

The problem(s) I see with this are:
1) Small sample size of games as was mentioned
2) Regardless of the year(s) the teams are, anything is possible. For example, I played an exhibition series in which the 1906 Chicago Cubs beat the 1927 New York Yankees 4 to 1 in a best of seven series and the Cubs outscored the Yankees 33-5. Also have played a series between the 1915 Philadelphia Athletics (one of the worst teams in history) and the 1954 Cleveland Indians (one of the best in history). The Indians won the series 4-2 but the runs scored were 35-29 in favor of the Athletics.
Is this relevant to this post? Maybe not, but it just goes to show that anything can happen in OOTP regardless of what happened or happens IRL.

kowalskisan · 11-05-2016, 09:59 AM

I stand by my assertion that OOTP 17 is a very poor product. There is no way I could tolerate playing hundreds of games on this fiasco to get a better sample size, the PbP alone is enough to drive me nuts. In OOTP 17 there is rarely a routine play, almost every out has someone diving, crashing, lunging or leaping to make a sensational play - that is not as IRL. In OOTP 17 every popup in the infield is handled by the catcher - that is not realistic but maddening. I went though my PC and found I had bought OOTP 13 some time ago but never used it. I installed it and set up a league with the same 32 teams and after few games clearly OOTP 13 is realistic, as versions 6 and 8 were, but OOTP 17 is being written off as $10 wasted. I do like some of the new features in OOTP 17, but the gameplay reeks. I've been playing tabletop/computer baseball games since my first Strat-O-Matic I got for my birthday in 1967, so I don't need a huge sample size to tell if a product feels "right" or not. I also used the same 32 teams in OOTP 8 and did play hundreds of games with very realistic results, so the comment about the poor results being due to mixing teams from different eras is not really valid. Clearly OOTP rushed 17 out without much quality control.

'94 EXPOS · 11-05-2016, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kowalskisan

I stand by my assertion that OOTP 17 is a very poor product. There is no way I could tolerate playing hundreds of games on this fiasco to get a better sample size, the PbP alone is enough to drive me nuts. In OOTP 17 there is rarely a routine play, almost every out has someone diving, crashing, lunging or leaping to make a sensational play - that is not as IRL. In OOTP 17 every popup in the infield is handled by the catcher - that is not realistic but maddening. I went though my PC and found I had bought OOTP 13 some time ago but never used it. I installed it and set up a league with the same 32 teams and after few games clearly OOTP 13 is realistic, as versions 6 and 8 were, but OOTP 17 is being written off as $10 wasted. I do like some of the new features in OOTP 17, but the gameplay reeks. I've been playing tabletop/computer baseball games since my first Strat-O-Matic I got for my birthday in 1967, so I don't need a huge sample size to tell if a product feels "right" or not. I also used the same 32 teams in OOTP 8 and did play hundreds of games with very realistic results, so the comment about the poor results being due to mixing teams from different eras is not really valid. Clearly OOTP rushed 17 out without much quality control.

Keep on searching for the game that gives what you want. Don't waste more of your time playing OOTP.

The end

endgame · 11-05-2016, 11:48 AM

Sample size and circumstantial evidence share a commonality. Either a vast majority of people are either wrong and lying and one or two are correct, or the experience of the many is correct and the outlier is mistaken, lying, misinterpreting, or driven by an unknown agenda.

The Game · 11-05-2016, 12:19 PM

I have played 11 seasons over 4 leagues on 17 and only rarely do i see the C handle a foul ball. 3B , 1B, LF, RF and even the P have as well.

From my experience playing all those teams in the modern era you will have some wacky scores. 1970's - late 80's modifiers tend to be better for teams for 1990 and before but will lessen the teams from 1991 and after.
There has to be a trade off somewhere. Teams of the deadball era didn;t hit HR so when I play the 1917 White Sox and Shoeless Joe Jackson with 2015 modifiers, while he will hit .335 or better he might hit 25-50 HR. You go too early Sammy Sosa's 1998 Cubs he hits 25-35 HR vs 60+.
Each version of OOTP is better then the last and while 13 is a great version, 17 is better then 17 in many ways.
Take the time to set up the league the right way and you should be happy with the results.
You also do not have to create a fictional league and delete the teams and players to set up a historical league of historical teams 1st. You import the historical teams overwriting the fictional teams. Worse case you can mass delete teams, players & coaches. takes 5 mins.

philthepat · 11-05-2016, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kowalskisan

I stand by my assertion that OOTP 17 is a very poor product. There is no way I could tolerate playing hundreds of games on this fiasco to get a better sample size, the PbP alone is enough to drive me nuts. In OOTP 17 there is rarely a routine play, almost every out has someone diving, crashing, lunging or leaping to make a sensational play - that is not as IRL. In OOTP 17 every popup in the infield is handled by the catcher - that is not realistic but maddening. I went though my PC and found I had bought OOTP 13 some time ago but never used it. I installed it and set up a league with the same 32 teams and after few games clearly OOTP 13 is realistic, as versions 6 and 8 were, but OOTP 17 is being written off as $10 wasted. I do like some of the new features in OOTP 17, but the gameplay reeks. I've been playing tabletop/computer baseball games since my first Strat-O-Matic I got for my birthday in 1967, so I don't need a huge sample size to tell if a product feels "right" or not. I also used the same 32 teams in OOTP 8 and did play hundreds of games with very realistic results, so the comment about the poor results being due to mixing teams from different eras is not really valid. Clearly OOTP rushed 17 out without much quality control.

I'm fairly sure if it was really as bad as you're describing, I wouldn't have spent literally thousands of hours playing it over the years with very few problems.

You're entitled to your opinion though, even if it is scheiße

NoOne · 11-05-2016, 01:47 PM

"so I don't need a huge sample size to tell if a product feels "right" or not."

that pretty much explains it all. if you rely on feelings you will be fooled by randomness more often if you did not mix feelings and objective facts. that is the entire point of a larger sample size... you cannot tell with confidence in the absence of a suitable sample size. believing that you can is like believing in magic relative to the results you reported. i.e. they are not extreme outliers consistently occurring one after another. a little common sense of course, but that's a very small portion of situations when it's actually obvious.

in addition to the game environment outlined by others (league totals, modifiers, team strategies, talent distributions of eras etc etc ), it looks like you are pairing really good teams to play each other. that's certainly not representative of any year's average. it's quite difficult to have a good idea of a baseline since there is none. you can run X games of simulations between 2 teams, but i don't know what kind of data you can get out of it and if it's easily fed to a 3rd party spreadsheet/db.

i think this frustration is mostly due to the complexities of players from different eras playing concurrently. if i was more familiar, i'd make some suggestions.

if you do like these types of games, i'd put it down for a week or two and relax. then, at some point in future make a basic mlb 2016 and turn on the auto-calc league totals modifiers (make sure it runs each year)... think it's default? either way use all defualt otherwise.... just play and don't get detail orientated with the settings.

i bet you'll enjoy it a bit more... then you can get into customizing with the knowledge that when properly balanced and set up in a logical way, you can do all sorts of things with a game world in ootp.

BigRed75 · 11-05-2016, 11:45 PM

I love this thread. It's so awesome

TheMaus2 · 11-06-2016, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRed75

I love this thread. It's so awesome

Might as well see the great knowledge and power from the experienced players rain down on the not-so-experienced player.

A dragon has awoken.

TuckerDuckson · 11-06-2016, 12:11 PM

I feel like there is some i'll say, "home bias" on this site. While his claims are extreme hyperbole and a small sample size, there are some problems with the game.

While his samples may be extreme, I've had a fictional league with 3 25+ run games in a week, while again it is a small sample size, there have only been 27 games in the history of the MLB with more than 25 runs scored, (and that's not to mention the opposing teams score)

I felt that the runs scored is a bit (for lack of a better term) 'extreme'. I got the realistic hit modifier and that would tone it down. I feel without some adjustments through the workshop and other downloadables the game is sort of 'annoying' to play. While I have put some decent time into the game, it just drags on you.

So he has a half-baked point about it, although he needs have a better sample size and he needs to realize that there so many different scoring eras hes playing in, but he has a point, somewhat.

RchW · 11-06-2016, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuckerDuckson

I feel like there is some i'll say, "home bias" on this site. While his claims are extreme hyperbole and a small sample size, there are some problems with the game.

No one here says the game has no problems. Our posts are available to any interested party. To dismiss a game based on less than 10 scores on probably the most difficult mode of in game play for OOTP suggests an agenda to me.

I asked the OP politely, I believe, to tell us what other games he tried. I think he (or she) is obligated to back up the critique with some detail on how other games in the genre handle that specific game mode.

Padreman · 11-06-2016, 03:06 PM

OP is aComplete noob to troll he's not even attempting to see he in the wrong with his set up

The Game · 11-07-2016, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TuckerDuckson

I feel like there is some i'll say, "home bias" on this site. While his claims are extreme hyperbole and a small sample size, there are some problems with the game.

While his samples may be extreme, I've had a fictional league with 3 25+ run games in a week, while again it is a small sample size, there have only been 27 games in the history of the MLB with more than 25 runs scored, (and that's not to mention the opposing teams score)

I felt that the runs scored is a bit (for lack of a better term) 'extreme'. I got the realistic hit modifier and that would tone it down. I feel without some adjustments through the workshop and other downloadables the game is sort of 'annoying' to play. While I have put some decent time into the game, it just drags on you.

So he has a half-baked point about it, although he needs have a better sample size and he needs to realize that there so many different scoring eras hes playing in, but he has a point, somewhat.

It all comes down to modifiers. I might have had 1 25+ run game over 5 versions of OOTP and 150 seasons in several leagues. I had a stellar offense with 1995 modifiers and didn't have 1 20 run game. Scored in the high teens a few times.

The Game · 11-07-2016, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Padreman

OP is aComplete noob to troll he's not even attempting to see he in the wrong with his set up

That's whats most bothering about posts like his. It tends to be a setup issue. OOTP, while great is not a out-of-the-box go ahead and play type of game for the most part. MVP on PS4 is far less reali8stic then OOTP. My nephew went 29-2 1.54 345 IP 622 K 45 BB with 2 good pitches and his 3rd less then 10 (1-100) overall.

Johnny Case · 11-07-2016, 08:16 AM

Kowalski is a hat-talker.

Imho, OOTP has evolved into the best historical sports sim ever. (And I've played them all going back to Lance Haffner, Earl Weaver Baseball, and XOR Football.) I've completed many full season replays (don't much care about the GM stuff) and I have never seen high goofy scores (even in 1930!) or catchers going after all the foul balls. Neither have I seen players leaping, dancing, doing back-flips, or standing on their heads.

I play in pitch-by-pitch mode, however, and I do wish there were fewer foul balls. Other than that, OOTP is about perfect.

11-04-2016, 06:43 PM	#1
kowalskisan Bat Boy Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2	OOTP 17 Not realistic OOTP 17 is absolutely absurd when it comes to realistic scoring. I've had OOTP versions before, with the last one being OOTP 8, and I've always found the number of hits/runs per game to be pretty realistic, but OOTP 17 does not come close. I've had to restart my seasons a few times because the game makes it ridiculously difficult to set up a league the way I want to. I like to take 32 of the best teams in history and match them up in a tournament or league, and it seems to me that it might be pretty common to do that, or am I just really weird? But no, in order to do this you have to first create a fictional league, then delete the fictional teams and import the historical teams. Then once you have your league you find the the original fictional players have managed to make their way onto the historical teams, so they have to be rooted out before starting play. In the first few iterations of a league I found the scoring to be unrealistic over the course of about a half dozen games and that has persisted now that I have a "good" league. Of the seven games I've played thus far in the league, only one game had a realistic score, the '69 Mets over the '72 Athletics, 3 R 10 H to 2 R 6 H. Here are the other six run and hit totals: '62 Giants over '86 Mets, 9 R 15 H to 6 R 12 H; '39 Yankees over '67 Red Sox, 8 R 15 H to 6 R 14 H; '34 Cardinals over '22 Giants, 14 R 18 H to 11 R 19 H; '54 Indians over '76 Reds, 11 R 15 H to 7 R 13 H; '24 Senators over '48 Indians, 8 R 14 H to 5 R 15 H; and finally '46 Red Sox over '68 Tigers, 16 R 22 H to 5 R 11 H. In seven games I've batted around the lineup in an inning 11 times, and it's not like I an not changing pitchers trying the stem the non-stop hit parade. I've used up to four pitchers in a half inning and usually use up just about all of my bullpen and bench every game. I do realize that the teams have some of the best hitters ever to play the game, but I'm also using some of the best pitchers, i.e. '24 Walter Johnson or '68 Denny McLain. I won't even get into the ridiculous errors in the game's commentary (ball hit down first base line fielded by 3rd baseman, ball in right field corner fielded by center fielder, for example). It seems to me there is zero quality control for this game, very sad and no wonder they are only charging $9.99. My search for a good historical baseball sim continues. Last edited by kowalskisan; 11-04-2016 at 06:45 PM.

11-04-2016, 07:05 PM	#2
Mariner and Giants Fan All Star Starter Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Port Townsend, WA. Posts: 1,264	Are you serious? Your sample of games is so so so tiny as to not be indicative of anything. Try it over half a season you know like hundreds of games before you draw any conclusions that have validity. __________________ Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

11-04-2016, 08:24 PM	#3
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,020	You're putting teams of various eras which obviously played in different run environments into a league with its own unknown run environment. Of course you're going to see some strange results. Not to mention the terribly small sample size. I recommend you look at the "league totals and modifiers" if you want to get certain results. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080)

11-05-2016, 09:59 AM	#7
kowalskisan Bat Boy Join Date: Nov 2016 Posts: 2	Installed OOTP 13, games are much more realistic. I stand by my assertion that OOTP 17 is a very poor product. There is no way I could tolerate playing hundreds of games on this fiasco to get a better sample size, the PbP alone is enough to drive me nuts. In OOTP 17 there is rarely a routine play, almost every out has someone diving, crashing, lunging or leaping to make a sensational play - that is not as IRL. In OOTP 17 every popup in the infield is handled by the catcher - that is not realistic but maddening. I went though my PC and found I had bought OOTP 13 some time ago but never used it. I installed it and set up a league with the same 32 teams and after few games clearly OOTP 13 is realistic, as versions 6 and 8 were, but OOTP 17 is being written off as $10 wasted. I do like some of the new features in OOTP 17, but the gameplay reeks. I've been playing tabletop/computer baseball games since my first Strat-O-Matic I got for my birthday in 1967, so I don't need a huge sample size to tell if a product feels "right" or not. I also used the same 32 teams in OOTP 8 and did play hundreds of games with very realistic results, so the comment about the poor results being due to mixing teams from different eras is not really valid. Clearly OOTP rushed 17 out without much quality control.

11-05-2016, 11:48 AM	#9
endgame Hall Of Famer Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 16,842	Sample size and circumstantial evidence share a commonality. Either a vast majority of people are either wrong and lying and one or two are correct, or the experience of the many is correct and the outlier is mistaken, lying, misinterpreting, or driven by an unknown agenda. __________________ "Try again. Fail again. Fail better." -- Samuel Beckett _____________________________________________

11-04-2016, 08:51 PM	#6
HuachucaThunder Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 211	The problem(s) I see with this are: 1) Small sample size of games as was mentioned 2) Regardless of the year(s) the teams are, anything is possible. For example, I played an exhibition series in which the 1906 Chicago Cubs beat the 1927 New York Yankees 4 to 1 in a best of seven series and the Cubs outscored the Yankees 33-5. Also have played a series between the 1915 Philadelphia Athletics (one of the worst teams in history) and the 1954 Cleveland Indians (one of the best in history). The Indians won the series 4-2 but the runs scored were 35-29 in favor of the Athletics. Is this relevant to this post? Maybe not, but it just goes to show that anything can happen in OOTP regardless of what happened or happens IRL.

11-05-2016, 12:19 PM	#10
The Game Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Inside The Game Posts: 30,937	I have played 11 seasons over 4 leagues on 17 and only rarely do i see the C handle a foul ball. 3B , 1B, LF, RF and even the P have as well. From my experience playing all those teams in the modern era you will have some wacky scores. 1970's - late 80's modifiers tend to be better for teams for 1990 and before but will lessen the teams from 1991 and after. There has to be a trade off somewhere. Teams of the deadball era didn;t hit HR so when I play the 1917 White Sox and Shoeless Joe Jackson with 2015 modifiers, while he will hit .335 or better he might hit 25-50 HR. You go too early Sammy Sosa's 1998 Cubs he hits 25-35 HR vs 60+. Each version of OOTP is better then the last and while 13 is a great version, 17 is better then 17 in many ways. Take the time to set up the league the right way and you should be happy with the results. You also do not have to create a fictional league and delete the teams and players to set up a historical league of historical teams 1st. You import the historical teams overwriting the fictional teams. Worse case you can mass delete teams, players & coaches. takes 5 mins. __________________ Go today don't wait for tomorrow It isn't promised, all the time you get borrowed Don't live your life for other people Don't bottle your emotions till they crack and fill a couple just sorrows Take your mind and refocus go get a paper write your goals out Throw your middle fingers to all your haters "Stay Strong"

11-05-2016, 01:47 PM	#12
NoOne Banned Join Date: Apr 2015 Posts: 7,273 Infractions: 0/1 (3)	"so I don't need a huge sample size to tell if a product feels "right" or not." that pretty much explains it all. if you rely on feelings you will be fooled by randomness more often if you did not mix feelings and objective facts. that is the entire point of a larger sample size... you cannot tell with confidence in the absence of a suitable sample size. believing that you can is like believing in magic relative to the results you reported. i.e. they are not extreme outliers consistently occurring one after another. a little common sense of course, but that's a very small portion of situations when it's actually obvious. in addition to the game environment outlined by others (league totals, modifiers, team strategies, talent distributions of eras etc etc ), it looks like you are pairing really good teams to play each other. that's certainly not representative of any year's average. it's quite difficult to have a good idea of a baseline since there is none. you can run X games of simulations between 2 teams, but i don't know what kind of data you can get out of it and if it's easily fed to a 3rd party spreadsheet/db. i think this frustration is mostly due to the complexities of players from different eras playing concurrently. if i was more familiar, i'd make some suggestions. if you do like these types of games, i'd put it down for a week or two and relax. then, at some point in future make a basic mlb 2016 and turn on the auto-calc league totals modifiers (make sure it runs each year)... think it's default? either way use all defualt otherwise.... just play and don't get detail orientated with the settings. i bet you'll enjoy it a bit more... then you can get into customizing with the knowledge that when properly balanced and set up in a logical way, you can do all sorts of things with a game world in ootp. Last edited by NoOne; 11-05-2016 at 01:51 PM.

11-05-2016, 11:45 PM	#13
BigRed75 Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 2,423	I love this thread. It's so awesome __________________ Mainline team SPTT team Was not a Snag fan...until I saw the fallout once he was gone and realized what a good job he was actually doing. - Ty Cobb

11-06-2016, 12:11 PM	#15
TuckerDuckson Major Leagues Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 446	I feel like there is some i'll say, "home bias" on this site. While his claims are extreme hyperbole and a small sample size, there are some problems with the game. While his samples may be extreme, I've had a fictional league with 3 25+ run games in a week, while again it is a small sample size, there have only been 27 games in the history of the MLB with more than 25 runs scored, (and that's not to mention the opposing teams score) I felt that the runs scored is a bit (for lack of a better term) 'extreme'. I got the realistic hit modifier and that would tone it down. I feel without some adjustments through the workshop and other downloadables the game is sort of 'annoying' to play. While I have put some decent time into the game, it just drags on you. So he has a half-baked point about it, although he needs have a better sample size and he needs to realize that there so many different scoring eras hes playing in, but he has a point, somewhat. __________________ Plays legit baseball now. My OOTP ratings are low. 2022 update: I'm two stars!

11-06-2016, 03:06 PM	#17
Padreman Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2013 Location: Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico (formally San Diego, CA.) Posts: 4,131	OP is aComplete noob to troll he's not even attempting to see he in the wrong with his set up __________________ Chargers= Despicable Traitors

11-07-2016, 08:16 AM	#20
Johnny Case Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Brooklyn Posts: 123	Kowalski is a hat-talker. Imho, OOTP has evolved into the best historical sports sim ever. (And I've played them all going back to Lance Haffner, Earl Weaver Baseball, and XOR Football.) I've completed many full season replays (don't much care about the GM stuff) and I have never seen high goofy scores (even in 1930!) or catchers going after all the foul balls. Neither have I seen players leaping, dancing, doing back-flips, or standing on their heads. I play in pitch-by-pitch mode, however, and I do wish there were fewer foul balls. Other than that, OOTP is about perfect.