K. I. S. S.

[CatKnight]

This has been building up within me for awhile now. I think it needs to be said, though I expect any twelve of you will pounce for it. That's fine.

It'll take me a few paragraphs to build my argument, but to put it as briefly as possible: Keep the game simple. When possible, simplify it. Adding new options is all well and good, but not at the price of playability. When in doubt, playability MUST take precedence over realism or even common sense.

We all have all sorts of ambitions to make BM more realistic, able to do more, and generally be better. I have them too. There are plenty of things BM can't do today that I really wish it would. Personally I would like a lot more control over my League setup. Others want to play with the roster rules, or have more options in trades, or with lineups.

There are two prices when you add more options. A few weeks ago (and possibly now) OOTP is debating the first cost: A player wrote:

I do think back though to when I found ootp v4. Guys were telling Markus "we want waivers, 40 man, MLB days of service, Professional days of service, disabled list, bonuses, back ended contracts, rule 5, more and more stats leading to a larger database, CATO like feature built into the game, full playable minor leagues, links throughout the game, etc. etc. etc.". Did they really think the game \GUI would not become more complex? Did they think that online file sizes would shrink?

Baseball Mogul's strongest advantage over OOTP and PureSim is that it's simple. You don't need 500 pages of manual to figure out what's going on. You can look at a player's ratings, and while you might get your tail kicked you can at least be confident it was because your team sucked or you made a managerial error, as opposed to not checking this submenu and forgetting to hire any scouts.

While adding all these pretty options, I can only hope Clay and others are making sure to keep the interface and ease of play under control. The more you have to micromanage (like with full minor rosters), the more menus you need to go through to explore all your options (promotional days anyone?), the harder you make the game and the more likely it stops being fun.

The second cost is this: Every time you ask the AI to do something new: Rosters, Rule V drafts, AI trading blocks, and so forth, the dumber it gets. This is simple logic unless you can program the AI to keep up...and that gets progressively, I would say exponentially harder.

This summer we had a huge discussion on competitive balance: How some teams almost always dominate BM because of the financial model and similar factors, so that you might consistently see teams with 110+ wins and others not able to make 50. Well....BM 2005 didn't have this issue. BM 2005 teams go through more or less realistic cycles, with teams dominating for a few years before they slip and others rise.

What changed? After BM05 draftees took much longer to reach the Majors. We started asking the AI to manage four levels of minors, and spend sufficiently in their farm system to make sure their #1 draftees reached their peak. The AI didn't do this well, and so the weaker/small market teams couldn't recover.

I'm certainly not suggesting we return to 05's model...on the other hand, it's one example of a game's increasing complexity actually hurting gameplay. At least for those of us who might actually like the AI to challenge us now and then.

I play a wargame called Europa Universalis. EU1 was the most unrealistic bit of nonsense you could think up. It would stack 100,000 troops in Switzerland and dare you to do something about it. You also didn't have that many options to get ahead of it. Sometimes I won. More often I was happy to survive.

EU2 offered many more options that players demanded. The AI behaved more realistically. However, acting realistically meant the AI wasn't as exploitive of opportunities (like your undefended border) as EU1. More options meant the AI had to do more, which meant it generally suffered. Until players went in and started modding the AI, EU2 was a cakewalk.

New options are fine. BM isn't perfect. It could be better. However, let's keep in mind every time we ask Clay to add something we'd like to be able to do, such as 40-man rosters ... we're telling the AI to do it too. The AI can't do what we're asking it to do today. It puts up nonsense lineups, makes ridiculous trades, and drafts (and protects in drafts) bad choices. Adding new things without a substantial upgrade to the AI makes it likely it'll just make more mistakes, and those who don't want to run the game over will have to make up more and more house rules to compensate.

Be careful what you wish for...

[Coach Owens]

Well said Cat. Although with progress in technology that happens every year, I think it might be easier than you think.

[Redsauce]

I very much agree, Cat.
I remember a poll some time ago where it was asked what options people wanted most out of the '08 (maybe '07) version of BM. There were a variety of choices--from 40 man rosters, back-loaded contracts, playable spring training, you name it. I think the last option, the one I chose, was something like "don't add anything new, make the stuff we have now work properly." It was the overwhelming dog in the poll. Everyone wanted to see newer, better stuff that probably wasn't going to work totally right either. I think that's why I've steered away from BM over the last year, year and a half. I want the stuff that I have now to work properly, not add another feature that won't work properly.

[ohms_law]

Generally, I completely agree. There does need to be new features though in order to sell a new game. Otherwise, there's really no point.

[CatKnight]

If this were almost any other company, I'd agree, ohms.

However, BM's marketing model is a bit different. Someone...I thought it was you, but perhaps it was someone else, talked about it a few weeks ago.

The post explained that BM08 is really a continuation of BM07, which is a continuation of BM06, etc. etc. What you are actually buying when you get a 'new game' is the license for a year's worth of updates, support and so forth.

Speaking just for myself, I'm quite willing to pay for that yearly 'license fee.'

Certainly I'd be happier doing that than have BM come out with some new toy because someone felt it 'had to,' and have it either unnecessarily complicate the game or make it even easier to dominate.

[Redsauce]

Actually, I disagree. There don't necessarily need to be new features in order to sell the game. I'd be the first one in line for BM '09 if there were no new features, but the old bugs were ironed out. I don't think I'd be the only one, either.

[Josh K.]

Actually, I disagree. There don't necessarily need to be new features in order to sell the game. I'd be the first one in line for BM '09 if there were no new features, but the old bugs were ironed out. I don't think I'd be the only one, either.

I haven't posted here in a long time, but I thought I'd jump in to say that I agree with you redsauce (ketchup maybe?). I would also be willing to pay for a game that had only a few new features, but a much improved AI, more of the bugs worked out than is typical for Clay and Co. etc. In fact, I was a little fed up w/ the bugs in '08, and the truth is that I would actually be MORE willing to buy '09 if I knew there was more time spent making it right, and less time spent adding things/potentially breaking things.

[MattyG.]

Personally, I like the simplicity of BM08. I agree that the game is great the way it is, just iron out some bugs, get the rosters correct (the original release last year had some terrible rosters) and show some respect for the Rockies this year when you do their ratings (we were way underrated last year!)

[HoustonGM]

(the original release last year had some terrible rosters)

Care to explain what exactly? Reason I'm asking is because I put them together, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.

and show some respect for the Rockies this year when you do their ratings (we were way underrated last year!)

The ratings were done based on PECOTA projections. I don't think the Rockes were underrated prior to the season. They just happened to breakout and surprise everybody. Based on preseason projections, they weren't anything special.

[pirate66]

Ah ... but before we digress, I agree with the initial premise of this post. And yes, I'd pony up some more bucks for BM09 without any new features, but better AI. However, I realize that is not the way things work.

[MattyG.]

Care to explain what exactly? Reason I'm asking is because I put them together, and I'd like to know where I went wrong.

The rosters that came out with last years game only had a few minor leaguers. They had none of the top prospects around the league. We had to wait a while for revised rosters instead of getting full minor leagues right off the bat. I don't mean to sound so ungrateful though, you guys do a great job

[HoustonGM]

The rosters that came out with last years game only had a few minor leaguers. They had none of the top prospects around the league. We had to wait a while for revised rosters instead of getting full minor leagues right off the bat. I don't mean to sound so ungrateful though, you guys do a great job

By last years game, are you referring to BM2k8 or 2k7?

[CatKnight]

Hmm. Perhaps any questions or concerns about the 2K8 rosters deserve their own thread?

[Coach Owens]

Hmm. Perhaps any questions or concerns about the 2K8 rosters deserve their own thread?

Awww. You're just jealous!

[CatKnight]

Horribly! It's not fair!