I have a question between OVR and stats

[coolfish2]

Does OVR include player's stats?
e.g.) We have two clone players, A is recording .380 since 3 years ago, while B is recording .200 since 3 years ago.
Then, will A get more OVR then B? Again, they have completely same values in editor.

Also, if the answer is yes then, is this effected from setting called Player Evaluation AI Settings in Global tab?

Thanks.

[Brad K]

Ratings are supposed to include stats if you select include stats in scouting. So if follows logically since ovr is derived from ratings that if include stats is selected then ovr includes stats.

I, however, question why people would want to do this. Why include stats in scout's ratings since you can already see them. If AI evaluation is set to 50% stats and 50% ratings, then when include stats is selected that's not the percentages the game is using.

Yes, scouts do this. That doesn't mean the game has to do it. Over three decades ago Gary Grigsby wrote about one of this games that he had sacrificed some realism in favor of a better game. This point has not yet been realized the the OOTP devs. Of course, at that point, Grigsby was already a veteran designer with probably a dozen games to his credit. Despite 25 years, OOTP is this group's first game.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Ratings are supposed to include stats if you select include stats in scouting. So if follows logically since ovr is derived from ratings that if include stats is selected then ovr includes stats.

I, however, question why people would want to do this. Why include stats in scout's ratings since you can already see them. If AI evaluation is set to 50% stats and 50% ratings, then when include stats is selected that's not the percentages the game is using.

Yes, scouts do this. That doesn't mean the game has to do it. Over three decades ago Gary Grigsby wrote about one of this games that he had sacrificed some realism in favor of a better game. This point has not yet been realized the the OOTP devs. Of course, at that point, Grigsby was already a veteran designer with probably a dozen games to his credit. Despite 25 years, OOTP is this group's first game.

The AI doesn't use Ov/Pot to make it's decisions it uses skill ratings and stats (if the user wants stats included). IOW a 50 stats/ 50 ratings setting will have the AI do exactly that. However the human is free to use Ov/Pot to make their decisions, though I don't understand why they would. Ov/Pot should only be used as an "eye catcher" to get the human user's attention. After that the human should be looking to the individual skills, the same as the AI.

You answered your own question.

The game doesn't have to do it, one can use the option or not, it's not forced on any player. Including stats was an option added due to user request. IOW before the addition "realism" was sacrificed in favor of a "better game". I guess that means OOTP was ahead of Grigsby in game design as their original code already sacrificed "realism". With the option comes the ability of each user to define what "realism" and "better game" is for their style of play. This is a good thing.

Different users have different reasons for the MANY options they use, or don't use, when playing OOTP. It's not hard to come up with reasons why some like including stats in scouting, the same as it's easy to understand why others don't. With a simple toggle OOTP allows the user to choose. It's good game design, not bad.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Sweed

The AI doesn't use Ov/Pot to make it's decisions it uses skill ratings and stats (if the user wants stats included).

Irrelevant. Stats are included in the ratings AI uses.

Originally Posted by Sweed

IOW a 50 stats/ 50 ratings setting will have the AI do exactly that. However the human is free to use Ov/Pot to make their decisions, though I don't understand why they would. Ov/Pot should only be used as an "eye catcher" to get the human user's attention. After that the human should be looking to the individual skills, the same as the AI.

Unless the setting only affects human controlled teams AI will have part of the ratings it sees affected by stats. It's not pure ratings anymore.

Are you willing to state setting scouting to include stats in ratings affects only a human controlled team? Isn't it more logical to think that a switch to affect scouting output affects all scouting? It's more work to code exceptions.

Originally Posted by Sweed

With a simple toggle OOTP allows the user to choose. It's good game design, not bad.

It's a bad idea because it causes another part of the game to give incorrectly information and because we as human players cannot tell in the game whether a hitter is doing well because he's good or because he's lucky. Scout ratings without stats tell us how good he is. Throw stats into the ratings and then there's the luck factor in ratings without us being able to determine if it's real or luck.

[SirMichaelJordan]

Incorporate me stats are for individual hitting ratings. AI evaluation is used for OVR.

two different things.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Irrelevant. Stats are included in the ratings AI uses.



Unless the setting only affects human controlled teams AI will have part of the ratings it sees affected by stats. It's not pure ratings anymore.

Are you willing to state setting scouting to include stats in ratings affects only a human controlled team? Isn't it more logical to think that a switch to affect scouting output affects all scouting? It's more work to code exceptions.




It's a bad idea because it causes another part of the game to give incorrectly information and because we as human players cannot tell in the game whether a hitter is doing well because he's good or because he's lucky. Scout ratings without stats tell us how good he is. Throw stats into the ratings and then there's the luck factor in ratings without us being able to determine if it's real or luck.

It doesn't use stats if you set stats to zero by using 100% for "ratings weight" . Yes in that situation the human's scout will not use stats either. Isn't that what we want, a level playing field? Not to even mention this is what you want, ie no stats in the evaluation.

The scout only knows how good a player really is if set to 100% accurate, any other setting has a fog of war be it with or without stats. How can the user have any idea how good his player really is with this incorrect information? OH NO!!

With that in mind I would think you would say the game should only have a default value of 100% scouting accuracy and no fog of war? Realistic and fun at the same time. But I guess in the end the game would be better for anyone that used FOW if it were taken away, because they didn't know how the game was screwing them.


Which takes us right back to my point.. You can setup your game to play it your way, 100% accurate scouts and no stats. Others can do the same in a way they choose. IOW good game design. You are arguing against a "win/win". Certainly not the first time you've done so, and I am at a loss to see why how others choose to play when it doesn't affect you is such an issue?

The best part of all of this is... It's not going to change.

[coolfish2]

Thank you for all answers. I think it's enough but if anybody wants to tell me more about this, then please post a reply. more opinions are helps my knowledge.
Anyway, I just wanted to make it sure because The manual provides only vague explanations.

p.s) I heard they are re-working for everything in manual this year. I hope they provide diverse and accurate information in new manual.

[jcard]

Originally Posted by SirMichaelJordan

Incorporate me stats are for individual hitting ratings. AI evaluation is used for OVR.

two different things.

This is the conclusion I reached.

[mytreds]

Here’s a thread on the topic, found by searching on google.

https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/...d.php?t=347606

Post #17 has a quote by Matt Arnold on the subject. I tried to find the answer in the manual and failed.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by coolfish2

p.s) I heard they are re-working for everything in manual this year. I hope they provide diverse and accurate information in new manual.

My guess is they're going to skip the 25 manual.

[coolfish2]

Originally Posted by Brad K

My guess is they're going to skip the 25 manual.

Actually, It is OK for me if they will give more detailed manual in 26. I am who think let thing empty is better than fill with inaccurate and lies.
So I will not be disappoint even they skip 25's manual but if they are come back with new manual that fills with poor quality then finally I will be.

[Salathor]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Yes, scouts do this. That doesn't mean the game has to do it. Over three decades ago Gary Grigsby wrote about one of this games that he had sacrificed some realism in favor of a better game. This point has not yet been realized the the OOTP devs. Of course, at that point, Grigsby was already a veteran designer with probably a dozen games to his credit. Despite 25 years, OOTP is this group's first game.

Thumbs up for the Gary Grigsby shoutout. I enjoy some War in the East.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by Salathor

Thumbs up for the Gary Grigsby shoutout. I enjoy some War in the East.

I'm primarily Carrier Strike and Pacific War. Matrix Games set people on a mission to improve Pacific War and made some improvements but had a fit about AI having some advantages and disabled them. Their version a better game only head to head.

Then one of the guys from the Matrix group decided to do some improvements. I worked with him for a while. But like the other people he understands how to code but doesn't understand game design. If I ever play vs AI again it will be the original Grigsby version with some of the Matrix aircraft and ship mods edited in.

Anyway, it's interesting that when the 20 Classic Wargames collection was published, four of the games were Grigsby's.

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by coolfish2

Actually, It is OK for me if they will give more detailed manual in 26. I am who think let thing empty is better than fill with inaccurate and lies.
So I will not be disappoint even they skip 25's manual but if they are come back with new manual that fills with poor quality then finally I will be.

It is going to be very difficult to produce a good manual at this point. There is obviously little of no internal documentation of the game. Look at all the times a dev will post things like "IIRC", "I think what we did there", and the ultimate this year concerning how adjust/weaken setting were used in the past "We don't know." Now I can understand in a last minute rush to hit the target release date how some things might not be written down, but not documenting has been a habit going back years and probably decades.

Then we have people like Garlon and his followers contradicting what the devs post (when they appear to know something) and spreading their own misinformation about how the game works (anything that doesn't work right is because the user has used the wrong settings).

Anyway, a good manual is a long way off because at present no one knows how the game works. No one.

I'm OK having no manual "forever" if it means someday there will eventually be a good one.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Over three decades ago Gary Grigsby wrote about one of this games that he had sacrificed some realism in favor of a better game.

Realism is what makes the game better, though

[Brad K]

Originally Posted by uruguru

Realism is what makes the game better, though

Not always. Grigsby said that relating to the scoring that gave the IJ player a chance for a draw under the theory that the Allies would grow weary of lack of progress and give up. Giving an IJ player a remote chance of not losing made the game better.

In the same way, OOTP would be a better game if AI had some help to make up for the fact that AI doesn't and can't have all the perceptions and abilities of an experienced human GM. I have several times suggested an option of "Help AI". And also one for "Help Human" for beginners.

[uruguru]

Originally Posted by Brad K

Not always. Grigsby said that relating to the scoring that gave the IJ player a chance for a draw under the theory that the Allies would grow weary of lack of progress and give up. Giving an IJ player a remote chance of not losing made the game better.

There are two ways to design a single-player strategy game. One is the wargaming approach: to make the game a competitive battle with the AI so that the player has to effectively use the game rules to outsmart the AI to win. That is what Grigsby is talking about.

The other is the simulation approach: to make the game model reality so that the player is immersed in the game.... that it "feels real" and he can RP his role within that world.

These are conflicting approaches and which you find more enjoyable is subjective. The more realistic a game, the more difficult it is for the developer to write an AI that can manage every variable to create the desired difficulty.

OOTP is already an incredibly complex for a strategy game and I can't even guess the number of man-years of effort required to get it up to human levels of competitiveness.

Couple that with the strongly nostalgic aspect of the historical game and I suspect a lot of OOTP players prefer the more realistic simulation approach. Player who play modern or fictional games most likely prefer the wargaming approach.