-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clay Dreslough
This isn't the bugs forum, but it would be great if you could elaborate on all the ways in which the listed features are broken. If so many things are broken, why isn't there a long list of 5-star bugs in the bugs forum? When I make patches and new versions, the first (and last) thing I do is check the bugs forum. For 11.18, the most serious unfixed bug I could find was:
Clay, whenever anyone posts a bug report for ANY of those issues it gets moved to the "suggestions" forum, because it's an "AI issue not a bug". I'm not interested in playing the BBM shell game. I gave up that dead end road LONG ago. Sorry.
You want a very succinct report on what's wrong with BBM?
Here:
http://pc.ign.com/articles/873/873848p1.html
This is a good place to start. Once those issues are looked at I'll be happy to resurrect some of my old threads that got BURIED long ago.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Here is another:
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=174080
I long since gave up and play with equalize cites, but there you are. Fix this, and you are doing something.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
And another
http://forum.sportsmogul.com/showthread.php?t=149647
Realisitc stats in a stats based Baseball game... what a concept.
Cripes and that's tjust off the first couple pages of the suggestions forum. If you haven't gotten the hint yet.. start digging, because more then a few posters have poured the minds and time into giving you hints on how to make your game better. Even if you disagree with their solutions, the fact they are suggesting means they are disatisfied with what is there now.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Dolfanar's hit the point I'm trying to make.
We can argue about minor fixes, but the problem is the AI.
Many of us have spent over $100 over the years in the game, waiting for the AI to get more accurate.
What do we have?
A game that has stagnated over minor debates while major problems remain unfixed.
My point Clay, about historical/fictional rookies is this. You don't have a switchover in 2004 or 2005. If I want to play the 98 Devil Rays, I shouldn't have to click advanced options to turn off fictional rookies. An historical expansion team with fictional rookies? It doesn't make sense.
City data could be extrapolated from other sources. Better yet, there could be historical cities put in. (but that's not a bug, it's a feature request)
To answer the question about something from 5 years ago, the stadiums are off when you start a new game. The data got extrapolated. I reported it five versions ago, when I fixed it in my own spreadsheet.
It's still broken.
If a game can't get stadiums (capacities right in 2008, what kind of quality reputation does this have?
Now that I think about it, the last time I checked in BM2009--Washington still plays in RFK.
But superficial bugs are things that can be fixed in five minutes. We've pointed out hundreds over the years.
They are still there.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adam
My point Clay, about historical/fictional rookies is this. You don't have a switchover in 2004 or 2005. If I want to play the 98 Devil Rays, I shouldn't have to click advanced options to turn off fictional rookies. An historical expansion team with fictional rookies? It doesn't make sense.
That has been fixed. You just start a new game and click Expansion. Then you load the 1998 Tampa Bay Devil Rays (As they were called then) and all the players on the D-Rays are right and historical
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
no, you get fictional rookies in the draft.
My argument is that if you're doing an expansion sim (heck, any sim before 1990), you should default to historical only.
A bigger point would be some kind of way to bring in fictional rookies.
Couldn't one code in all of the rookies in the 2008 rosters (minor leaguers) to come into the game, along with the 2008 draft picks, to postpone fictional picks to 2008-2009.
If you start with historical only, you could be given the option to switch at a certain date when you run out of rookies.
Again, this is my point. This is not a professional game, otherwise, they'd find a way to fix some of these things.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
You could start in 1998 as the Rays and have the correct players.
That's all I am saying. You have a solution if you really wanted to play as the correct 1998 Devil Rays.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
The players come from the Lahman database so I think since that only uses players who have spent time in the majors it would leave off guys who are in the farm system but never played in the majors.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adam
My point Clay, about historical/fictional rookies is this. You don't have a switchover in 2004 or 2005. If I want to play the 98 Devil Rays, I shouldn't have to click advanced options to turn off fictional rookies. An historical expansion team with fictional rookies? It doesn't make sense.
The simple fact of the matter is that, when you get close to modern time, you NEED fictional rookies, or the amount of players in the game is going to start drastically decreasing. There's no database for minor league players, only MLB players, so obviously, as you approach the now, the amount of players decreases, and fictional draftees are needed to supplement that.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Clay Dreslough
To the modders: Please realize that extra attention is being given to what you say. If you need to say something that a modder shouldn't say (like telling someone to go away) I would strongly recommend that you create a 2nd forum account and use that name instead.
Yea... That's just such a PITA though...
*sigh*
humm
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
The simple fact of the matter is that, when you get close to modern time, you NEED fictional rookies, or the amount of players in the game is going to start drastically decreasing. There's no database for minor league players, only MLB players, so obviously, as you approach the now, the amount of players decreases, and fictional draftees are needed to supplement that.
This is true. I usually start up ficties around 2005. Being able to set a date to start creating fictional rookies would be nice though, rather than a binary option.
What sucks is that when a new team enters the league, even in historical games with a draft, they are auto populated with fictional rookies BEFORE the expansion draft. So you end up with a load of unwnated fictional players even with fictional players turned off. This shouldn't happen... even if those players stink.
And on expansion... why can't we use the same expansion draft logic when we add our own custom teams? Not talking about being able to manually draft ourselves. Just use the code that drafts just like the historical ones run...
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dolfanar
What sucks is that when a new team enters the league, even in historical games with a draft, they are auto populated with fictional rookies BEFORE the expansion draft. So you end up with a load of unwnated fictional players even with fictional players turned off. This shouldn't happen... even if those players stink.
When you think about it, that's realistic though. The expansion teams in real life got to "draft" and run minor leagues a year or two before they became major league teams. Since Mogul doesn't have real minor league players, the fictional players are used.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
When you think about it, that's realistic though. The expansion teams in real life got to "draft" and run minor leagues a year or two before they became major league teams. Since Mogul doesn't have real minor league players, the fictional players are used.
It's exactly as realistic as populating all teams with fictional minor leaguers to fill out there rosters... and we don't do that, do we?
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dolfanar
It's exactly as realistic as populating all teams with fictional minor leaguers to fill out there rosters... and we don't do that, do we?
Pardon me as I haven't played historical leagues, but how many of these fictinoal minor leaguers get placed on the team?
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Seriously, why doesn't someone just lock this thread before it gets even more out of hand?
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Because, as several people have pointed out in the past, the culture here is accepting of these sorts of threads. Clay doesn't seem to mind criticism that much.
Besides, what exactly is out of hand? People criticising me for the way I handle Bug Reports? I can handle that, it doesn't bother me in the least.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Pardon me as I haven't played historical leagues, but how many of these fictinoal minor leaguers get placed on the team?
If you mean Expansion teams, atleast 25. Basically it appears that they are placeholders to get from the point the team is created to the xp draft (which often gives xp teams the deepest minor leagues of all the teams... though with older crappy players). Thing is they should be deleted right after the draft as often the AI will place them in the lineup and they WILL get playing time over guy's they pick up in the xp draft even if their ratings suck.
For historical games where we deliberatly turn fictional players off, this is a HUGE no-no.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
It's not like adam isn't saying the truth. Some people here just aren't bothered by the shortcomings.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
I'm aware of that, and I know Clay doesn't mind the criticism. But I'm sensing an air of very high hostility.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
belial
It's not like adam isn't saying the truth. Some people here just aren't bothered by the shortcomings.
And I'll bet those are the folks who derive the most enjoyment from playing the game...ignorance is bliss, don'cha know...:p
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
YEAH DAAAAWG
I'm aware of that, and I know Clay doesn't mind the criticism. But I'm sensing an air of very high hostility.
Nah...Guys are just venting here, 'cos they're mad that Hillary didn't make it....
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
This is a game that I want to like. It is fun to play. I truly enjoy the in-game experience.
But then after i have played a couple of seasons i realize it has nothing to do with reality. Everything is either a bit off or a long way off and then i realize i have wasted my time.
OOTP is so far ahead its ridiculous. However OOTP is a much more serious game and some people would rather not put in the time that ootp takes to play. Wolverin Sports is coming out with a game that promises to be pretty good and that may put BM further behind. I still think there is a place for this game but realistic results just have to be possible to achieve in the game.
That is not the only problem but that is the one i can least live with.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
maybe some more OOTP fanboys will show up :)
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
I don't think anyone would say this game is perfect. But the things I like about it are that its easy to use, customizable, and cheap. Most new games from big developers cost $40-$60.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rongar
And I'll bet those are the folks who derive the most enjoyment from playing the game...ignorance is bliss, don'cha know...:p
Yes, very insightful. I just make up reasons for when stuff is a little off kilter. Real life can be strange anyway. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
waltwa
This is a game that I want to like. It is fun to play. I truly enjoy the in-game experience.
But then after i have played a couple of seasons i realize it has nothing to do with reality. Everything is either a bit off or a long way off and then i realize i have wasted my time.
OOTP is so far ahead its ridiculous. However OOTP is a much more serious game and some people would rather not put in the time that ootp takes to play. Wolverin Sports is coming out with a game that promises to be pretty good and that may put BM further behind. I still think there is a place for this game but realistic results just have to be possible to achieve in the game.
That is not the only problem but that is the one i can least live with.
The funny thing is that I've been playing OOTP since it was reliesed. I can honestly say that I'm giveing it my best, most open minded evaluation and... well, swap Mogul for OOTP and OOTP for Mogul in your statement abovee and we feel the exact same way.
The games are just different. It's just that simple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
belial
Yes, very insightful. I just make up reasons for when stuff is a little off kilter. Real life can be strange anyway. :)
And, incidentally, less perfect than Mogul or OOTP is. You know how many scoring errors there are in real life?
;)
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
OK, no need for the OOTP fanboy comment. We know there are people who prefer that game, and people who prefer this one.
As for realism...hm, well some of the offensive stats ARE off. No one can make a reasonable argument otherwise. However, in the area I care about, competitive balance, it's getting pretty close. There's an OOTP dynasty now that's gone from 1901 to 1930 last I checked before my 'puter started speaking Wingding .... and the results were more or less in line with 'Blitz' pre-1969.
Another user reported having multiple 900 HR peeps with OOTP by 2020 or 2030.
Nah. OOTP is able to cover their errors more easily under mountains of detail, but stats doesn't equate with realism, and having a hundred or so minor leaguers per club doesn't really mean all that much either.
Once Wolverine's PureSim successor (Draft Day Baseball?) is ready I'll probably D/L it and give it a fair shot, but I think my OOTP days are about done.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
I have also played it, but the amount of detail takes the (fun) aspect out. The game simulation engine is actually behind that of Moguls, but Mogul competitiveness makes me want to put that game down too.
With Pure Sim/Draft Day, when I had 2k3, it was the slowest game of the 3 by a large margin.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
It simply isn't possible to make a game like BBM or OOTP perfect in all ways, bug-less, and all that jazz. Its a matter of deciding what you want out of your baseball sim. Do you want gross amounts of detail trying to mask the flaws that the game has, or do you want a game thats fun, easy to pick up and play, and easy for newcomers to get into?
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Well, I want both, actually. :o Right now, I've got OOTP going, and I'm still planning on either picking up BM2009 OR going for DDS:BB when it comes out, as well...somewhere down the line. I've got WAY too **** many games I need to play through, and, like an idiot, I made the mistake recently of re-discovering my love for Steel Panthers : World at War, too.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ohms_law
The funny thing is that I've been playing OOTP since it was reliesed. I can honestly say that I'm giveing it my best, most open minded evaluation and... well, swap Mogul for OOTP and OOTP for Mogul in your statement abovee and we feel the exact same way.
The games are just different. It's just that simple.
And, incidentally, less perfect than Mogul or OOTP is. You know how many scoring errors there are in real life?
;)
You're so right, Ohms...every time I try to score, I err...:rolleyes:
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
waltwa
OOTP is a much more serious game
A serious game should not have a guessing game in lieu of contract negotiation.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
I have played OOTP, and I thought it was good, but whenever I took a break, I would come back and get lost.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jeff Olsen
A serious game should not have a guessing game in lieu of contract negotiation.
What do you mean by this? I have never played through an entire season of OOTP so I'm not really sure how the contracts work in that game. I know that I didn't like that I couldn't even specify the exact details when I was negotiating though.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
You don't know what the player wants for his contract, so you kindof guess what they want. 9times out of 10, you can't sign them...or you give them a huge contract.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boomboom
You don't know what the player wants for his contract, so you kindof guess what they want. 9times out of 10, you can't sign them...or you give them a huge contract.
Exactly. What really ticks me off is having to go through the guessing game for players who want to extend their contract with me, then lose them because they won't give me any idea of what they want to be paid! That is not realistic and there is no way I'll play OOTP again until it's fixed, if only for those who come to me for an extension. Given Markus's attitude toward finances, I'm not holding my breath.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jeff Olsen
A serious game should not have a guessing game in lieu of contract negotiation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boomboom
You don't know what the player wants for his contract, so you kindof guess what they want. 9times out of 10, you can't sign them...or you give them a huge contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jeff Olsen
Exactly. What really ticks me off is having to go through the guessing game for players who want to extend their contract with me, then lose them because they won't give me any idea of what they want to be paid! That is not realistic and there is no way I'll play OOTP again until it's fixed, if only for those who come to me for an extension. Given Markus's attitude toward finances, I'm not holding my breath.
Yea, I just figured this out. I was really hoping that it was changed in version 9, but it's not. This is an absolute game stopper for me. All you can really do, as a human player at least, is play through one season.
Really, the game isn't bad at all. There are several things that I would love to see implemented in Mogul (although, probably not in quite the same manner). It's definitely a sold game... right up until it comes time to sign or resign players.
PS.: there's also no refunds for OOTP. Talk about buyer beware...
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
adam
To answer the question, I've generally liked the game and hte board for many years.
I'm just tired of the way you treat your users, and trying to defend a game which has major problems year after year.
I've finally cashed in my interest and figure other games deserve more time.
I've never seen such a set of defensive moderators in my life. All I have tried to say is that we've all reported thousands of bugs, small and large. Clay wants to fix the small, but ignores most of the large issues.
Getting aggresively defensive to someone who disagrees with the premise of the thread is a way to pull users away.
Would you rather have apathetic users who buy it once, get frustated with the issues, and give up, or someone who has bought it year after year in hopes of it becoming better and posting issues that are problems?
The best thing for this game would be to get new moderators and realize that we are here to help, not to hinder.
However, the fact remains--I wasted my money this year.
Not all moderators are as you describe.
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
"All" can never be summed up with one descriptiong. At least not when that "all" is comprised by many singular human beings. I stopped letting generalized comments like that get under my skin years ago :)
-
Re: We've come a looooong way :)
Adam. it's not only moderators who pipe up positively for this game-
- many of us GUPs (Great Unwashed Players***), oft sing its praises, too, you know - haven't you read our many enthusiastic posts, burbling of its delights?.
You seem to be trying to suggest that more people despair of the game, than love it - I have the opposite impression
***(Unwashed, 'cos we're too busy playing BM!)
