Official Feedback Thread

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by wfborges

Markus et al. -

Hey, we've known about the stadium changes for a while now, but nothings seems to have made it into the new game.

Given that the A's will play home games in Sacramento for three years, I would suggest you get a virtual stadium for them up and running? Same thing for Tampa Bay, who will play home games at the Steinbrenner NYY complex? The smaller field dimensions will affect performance.

What I don't get is why there is a problem with Houston and CWS stadiums, as these stadiums have been included before and were in OOTP 25. Are their new naming rights holders suddenly balking at licensing the use of the names and images? This seems particularly strange for the CWS stadium, which has a simplified name.

If you can't quickly resolve this, please make it easy to upload the OOTP25 stadiums.

Otherwise, love the new game.

Sutter Health Field is in the game. Steinbrenner Field will not be (this is a licensing thing, not our choice).

The Houston and CWS stadiums are also included and load fine in a regular 2025 new standard game.

Where are you not seeing these not loading? I think I saw someone mention they may not have loaded correctly in the offseason quickstart, and if that's the case we can look at fixing that up.

[daves]

It is not easy setting up an exhibition mode tournament. It would be nice in the future to have set templates for certain tournaments like top teams of every decade or easily import a complete season. It's a nice feature, but it requires too much clicking and more time to setup than most regular seasons.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by daves

It is not easy setting up an exhibition mode tournament. It would be nice in the future to have set templates for certain tournaments like top teams of every decade or easily import a complete season. It's a nice feature, but it requires too much clicking and more time to setup than most regular seasons.

This is a good idea!

[BaseballATeam]

Originally Posted by Lukas Berger

I know a few folks have said the same thing, so don't want to be dismissive, but I really think this a case of playing out more games than you watch in real life, so having more opportunities to see this sort of thing when it does happen. Then those comebacks stick in your mind more than all the 3-1 wins where nothing happened in the 9th.

If this was a pervasive issue, then you'd see in the stats for relief pitchers in game, they would have bloated ERA's, blown save numbers etc

I haven't kept data on it or anything, but I used to write for FanGraphs and had an eye on just about every game for the better part of a decade. I know exactly how many games *should* change leads in the ninth inning (roughly 5%, rising to 8% for leads of 3 or less), and it sure feels like more than 8% in-game. Not enough to complain about, mind you, I just take it as one of those things that's more video-gamey than reality.

I think where it's most noticeable is with large leads. The number of eight+ run leads that change in the ninth inning in a given season can usually be counted on one finger, and that's leaguewide. Run a 10-year sim, and most teams should experience between 0-1 instances of a lead change of this magnitude. My experience with OOTP is it's more like 2-3 times a year per (human) team.

I do think it probably has to do with gaming mechanics like Sparkplug. I don't know if there's a momentum mechanic in there somewhere, but maybe that can run away sometimes.

This is all an observation, not a criticism.

[Lukas Berger]

Originally Posted by BaseballATeam

I haven't kept data on it or anything, but I used to write for FanGraphs and had an eye on just about every game for the better part of a decade. I know exactly how many games *should* change leads in the ninth inning (roughly 5%, rising to 8% for leads of 3 or less), and it sure feels like more than 8% in-game. Not enough to complain about, mind you, I just take it as one of those things that's more video-gamey than reality.

I think where it's most noticeable is with large leads. The number of eight+ run leads that change in the ninth inning in a given season can usually be counted on one finger, and that's leaguewide. Run a 10-year sim, and most teams should experience between 0-1 instances of a lead change of this magnitude. My experience with OOTP is it's more like 2-3 times a year per (human) team.

I do think it probably has to do with gaming mechanics like Sparkplug. I don't know if there's a momentum mechanic in there somewhere, but maybe that can run away sometimes.

This is all an observation, not a criticism.

Appreciate the observations.

We don't use Sparkplug or any sort of momentum mechanics in the least, so certainly that would not come into play at all here.

EDIT: Just to expand on this a bit, it's always super hard with things in-game where you cannot necessarily get a sufficient sample size to know if there's a possible issue or not. Anecdotal evidence is worth considering but only to a certain point. We've made changes based on it in the past and really messed things up as a result. So we're much more careful not to do this now.

As an example, lots of folks have always sworn that there are too many pb's and wp's while playing out games, and yet the in-game simulation is the same as regular simulation in OOTP (obviously excepting for the user inupt) and then season numbers come out perfectly fine and we can never find any verifiable issues here in our in-game testing. So it becomes pretty difficult to even know if there's even a problem in cases like this, much less any possible causes or fixes or if it's just a case of things 'feeling' off but being perfectly fine.

[Cobbiusto]

I wonder if these results could be impacted by how the system works. I don't know the mechanics of the game system, obviously, but my take is that everything is controlled by a top-down management of expected totals for the season. So that if a particular stat gets out of line with what should be expected for a particular point in the season, whether its HRs, SBs, or runs in general, the system will adjust to allow the numbers to come back in line. I think of it as a machine that constantly seeks to revert to the mean. If this is the case and you are playing a game that is late in the day and late in the game and scoring is running a little below what is expected, would the engine loosen up a little to encourage some late game runs to bring the total back in line? Perhaps that is what is causing the seeming unrealistic proliferation of late comebacks. I don't know. This is just a speculation.

I feel like this mean reversion takes place in almost every season I play out. No matter how good or bad my team is, the majority of the time monthly records see-saw back and forth between winning and losing. Seemingly to prevent a team from being too good or too bad. I have also noticed this early in the season. For example, the first couple of days of the season, I never attempt a SB, because it seems that if a few SBs have already happened, the odds of stealing more is greatly reduced (as it would move too far from the expected mean at that point of the season), regardless of how good the base stealer is. I used to try to steal on opening day, but kept getting top stealers thrown out contiunually. If I waited a few days until numbers seemingly settled down, the SB % seemed to fall more in line with expectations. Again, these are just my observations as to how the game feels, as I have no idea of the actual inner workings of the game mechanics.

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Cobbiusto

I wonder if these results could be impacted by how the system works. I don't know the mechanics of the game system, obviously, but my take is that everything is controlled by a top-down management of expected totals for the season. So that if a particular stat gets out of line with what should be expected for a particular point in the season, whether its HRs, SBs, or runs in general, the system will adjust to allow the numbers to come back in line. I think of it as a machine that constantly seeks to revert to the mean. If this is the case and you are playing a game that is late in the day and late in the game and scoring is running a little below what is expected, would the engine loosen up a little to encourage some late game runs to bring the total back in line? Perhaps that is what is causing the seeming unrealistic proliferation of late comebacks. I don't know. This is just a speculation.

I feel like this mean reversion takes place in almost every season I play out. No matter how good or bad my team is, the majority of the time monthly records see-saw back and forth between winning and losing. Seemingly to prevent a team from being too good or too bad. I have also noticed this early in the season. For example, the first couple of days of the season, I never attempt a SB, because it seems that if a few SBs have already happened, the odds of stealing more is greatly reduced (as it would move too far from the expected mean at that point of the season), regardless of how good the base stealer is. Again, these are just my observations as to how the game feels, as I have no idea of the actual inner workings of the game mechanics.

This just isn't how the engine works.

You can test with crazy ratings or crazy modiers to see that the game will absolutely allow for results well outside of what you are referring to as the "mean".

There IS a checkbox which you can turn on for this kind of influence, called "Automatically control in-game engine" which was created specifically for the minor leagues (well really for those that don't want to spend time making sure those league totals are working well) and shouldn't be used at the major league level.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Rain King

This just isn't how the engine works.

You can test with crazy ratings or crazy modiers to see that the game will absolutely allow for results well outside of what you are referring to as the "mean".

There IS a checkbox which you can turn on for this kind of influence, called "Automatically control in-game engine" which was created specifically for the minor leagues (well really for those that don't want to spend time making sure those league totals are working well) and shouldn't be used at the major league level.

Even that checkbox does not adjust in that way. It's more simply an alternate way to balance the player ratings that are used in the game without the use of modifiers. But it only acts on the actual ratings, it has no influence of any actual stats or results to balance.

[Cobbiusto]

Well, that's great. I had totally misunderstood. So the pitcher and batter matchup is actually mano v mano and determines the results of the play? I always thought it should be that way, but believed it was influenced by season totals. I never tried to manipulate any ratings, but have never seen any out of the box results like someone having 100 HRs or a team with 130 wins.

So under Game Settings and Stats & AI it says "The league totals and modifiers determine the stats output of the simulation engine". You're saying we should just ignore that?

[Rain King]

Originally Posted by Cobbiusto

So under Game Settings and Stats & AI it says "The league totals and modifiers determine the stats output of the simulation engine". You're saying we should just ignore that?

I'm not sure why anything Matt or I said would lead to "ignore that".

The game has to have a baseline statistical output. That is what the League Totals are. From there everything is based on percentages/ratios.

The player ratings still determine the outcome, but the game needs to know what the average outcome should be for an Average Batter vs. an Average Pitcher. So, your League Totals are you determining that environment.

Why would the game create player/enviroments out of the box that produce 100 HR players or 130 win teams? I wouldn't think that is what people want by default. However, you can make it that way if you would like.

I created a team that went 162-0 at one point to prove this, will dig through my posts and link that.

Edit: Thread where I created the 162-0 team. https://forums.ootpdevelopments.com/....php?p=5081423

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Cobbiusto

Well, that's great. I had totally misunderstood. So the pitcher and batter matchup is actually mano v mano and determines the results of the play? I always thought it should be that way, but believed it was influenced by season totals. I never tried to manipulate any ratings, but have never seen any out of the box results like someone having 100 HRs or a team with 130 wins.

So under Game Settings and Stats & AI it says "The league totals and modifiers determine the stats output of the simulation engine". You're saying we should just ignore that?

The totals and modifiers do impact the results (you can read up on them here: https://wiki.ootpdevelopments.com/in..._and_Modifiers)

But those totals/modifiers are essentially guidelines. We changed how they worked a couple year ago, but the totals you can more or less treat as "if you had an average batter facing an average pitcher, what should an average AB end up as".

The modifiers do act on top of that, but are (mostly) intended to correct the results back to the totals. Depending on exactly how your game is set up or not, the modifiers basically are there to get the actual league totals back in line with the "expected" league totals listed on that page.

But every individual AB only factors in those. If you have McGwire against Maddux, give or take stuff like park factors and other factors like that, he'd have the same chance of hitting a HR whether he's going for HR #1, HR #10, or HR #62 on the season. And whether the league has hit 5 HR or 5000 HR.

[Matt Arnold]

Originally Posted by Rain King

I'm not sure why anything Matt or I said would lead to "ignore that".

The game has to have a baseline statistical output. That is what the League Totals are. From there everything is based on percentages/ratios.

The player ratings still determine the outcome, but the game needs to know what the average outcome should be for an Average Batter vs. an Average Pitcher. So, your League Totals are you determining that environment.

Why would the game create player/enviroments out of the box that produce 100 HR players or 130 win teams? I wouldn't think that is what people want by default. However, you can make it that way if you would like.

I created a team that went 162-0 at one point to prove this, will dig through my posts and link that.

It's fun to give a player max ratings at everything and see how good you can get them. I know I've definitely gotten over 20 WAR, not even counting setting them as a two-way guy to get those pitching starts in.

[Cobbiusto]

I got confused when you said that's not how the engine works, but I got it now. Thanks and have a great day!

[Cobbiusto]

Thanks Matt. That helps my understanding of the system also. That's in line with what I had assumed, though I am sure I worded it badly, trying to convey my understanding. Just been trying to brainstorm through what might have led to some of the results I have seen through the years. It helps sometimes to put things out there, where you can get feedback from others with better knowledge.

[webrian]

Every time I try to play the Pennant Chase game with a historical season, it takes me straight to 2025. Am I doing something wrong, or is this feature not included yet?

[webrian]

Ah! I see how it works now. I figured it out.

You must select Historical Season play first, and *then* you get the Drive for the Pennant Option.

Nicely done!

[JohnCena]

I made a bug report about this issue, but I haven’t heard anything about it or if it’s being looked at yet.

Every time I play a historical sim starting in 1903, once I get to around 1908, there are so many top draft picks who never sign with their teams, even when it says they sign with the team that drafted them minor league organization. Their entire careers just stay in limbo and they never play an inning of baseball within the game universe

Perfect example: According to the game, Vin Campbell is the best player in baseball with an 80/80 overall rating. He was drafted by the Cardinals in 1907 and signed a minor league contract with their organization with a signing bonus of $1,430

However, it is 1912 and Vin has still never played an inning of baseball. He’s certainly not the only example of this either. Vic Saier, Jack Dalton, Ray Collin’s and Al Klawitter are more examples of top 20 players NEVER playing an inning of baseball in their careers

This is my second historical sim this is happening and I can’t believe I am the only one seeing this.

[BaseballATeam]

A behavior change I'm not enthusiastic about but could be easily (I assume) adjusted to be great...

I've always used the "Minor League Managers" option for "Minor League Free Agent Signings & Releases." I want to delegate that aspect of roster management. What I've discovered is that my managers are offering multiple split contracts worth ~$2MM to a half-dozen players. That's having negative effects on my budgeting.

Now, what would be cool is if the Minor League Managers were constrained to $0 offers by default but sent you an action item email when they wanted to offer a player more. i.e. "We want Marco Luciano, but he wants an invite to Spring Training with a $2MM split contract. Should we make the offer?" And then the decision button is a simple agree/disagree, or it could drop you in the negotiation window with that player (whichever is easier programmatically).

Put simply, my personnel should ask me (in whichever way you feel is appropriate) before spending money. That *could* extend to other manager operations. i.e. a toggle box to "ask for approval" for events like sign/fire minor league personnel.

I guess what I'm asking is to consider polishing the simulation of collaboration between a multi-person front office staff.

[lsburner]

Originally Posted by BaseballATeam

A behavior change I'm not enthusiastic about but could be easily (I assume) adjusted to be great...

I've always used the "Minor League Managers" option for "Minor League Free Agent Signings & Releases." I want to delegate that aspect of roster management. What I've discovered is that my managers are offering multiple split contracts worth ~$2MM to a half-dozen players. That's having negative effects on my budgeting.

Now, what would be cool is if the Minor League Managers were constrained to $0 offers by default but sent you an action item email when they wanted to offer a player more. i.e. "We want Marco Luciano, but he wants an invite to Spring Training with a $2MM split contract. Should we make the offer?" And then the decision button is a simple agree/disagree, or it could drop you in the negotiation window with that player (whichever is easier programmatically).

Put simply, my personnel should ask me (in whichever way you feel is appropriate) before spending money. That *could* extend to other manager operations. i.e. a toggle box to "ask for approval" for events like sign/fire minor league personnel.

I guess what I'm asking is to consider polishing the simulation of collaboration between a multi-person front office staff.

I've noticed they're doing this in 26 too. I have it set up to get news from my org in my emails though, so I get notified when the player wants more $ at least. But I've also noticed that it seems like the AI is acting weirdly because there will be dozens of rounds of negotiations that seem to be going nowhere with the same player who's a minor league free agent. The attached screenshots are just one example; there have been a bunch of other players over game years 2025-2029 where the AI keeps offering essentially the same contract over and over and over again. That's a minor issue because it just means I get annyoing emails but it's still strange and not something I recall from prior versions of the game.

[BaseballATeam]

Same behavior on my end. I also find my managers usually lose the bidding so it's been mainly an issue of email flooding.

I like the new, "P.S. I am getting impatient" message. I've seen a couple instances where that message is sent in conjunction with a "[player] signs with [other team]" notification. To me, that's a feature rather than a bug, but I imagine you'll get some complaints from folks who want to feel more in control.