Changes of Heart

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Questdog

I played 6.5 with ratings off, but you could still see fielding ratings, running ratings, bunting ratings, and endurance....

Originally Posted by Cowboys3356

Yet another aspect of gameplay where 6.51 dominates OOTP2006.

I know some people missed this about 6.5; there was a recent thread by some online gamers who wanted this restored and bemoaned the ruination of their league when it was not (not to make light of it, in consideration of their point of view, however).

I'll say it here and challenge whomever to reply: I bet this was a programming oversight in 6.5 that people got used to and now use as one more weapon to trash OOTP2006 (not that it should not be trashed for some things, but not this IMO). I mean, what is the sense of not seeing one's batting or pitching ratings, but being able to assess how well he bunts?

There, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Flame on!

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I mean, what is the sense of not seeing one's batting or pitching ratings, but being able to assess how well he bunts?

I do think it makes for a more playable sim game. I don't think it's all that easy to assess bunting ability without ratings unless you play out all the games. It simply would be impossible in an online league setting.

As for running, I think you could get a sense of that based on minor league SB numbers.

[Questdog]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I know some people missed this about 6.5; there was a recent thread by some online gamers who wanted this restored and bemoaned the ruination of their league when it was not (not to make light of it, in consideration of their point of view, however).

I'll say it here and challenge whomever to reply: I bet this was a programming oversight in 6.5 that people got used to and now use as one more weapon to trash OOTP2006 (not that it should not be trashed for some things, but not this IMO). I mean, what is the sense of not seeing one's batting or pitching ratings, but being able to assess how well he bunts?

There, the gauntlet has been thrown down. Flame on!

The oversight was in OOTP2006, not 6.51....

Some ratings need to be shown because either there is no other way to have the knowledge or they are things that would be easily discerned if you could physically see the player....

[1998 Yankees]

I don't think I agree with you two guys on this, but from an aesthetic rather than pragmatic viewpoint. Ratings represent the judgment and assessment of your scouts, coaching staff, and media, without which, yes, you would have no way of knowing about such things as bunting ability. To have ratings off is to say there is no input available from any of these sources and all you have available are stat sheets in order to judge player quality. I say that there has never been nor will there ever be such a situation in real baseball and to have the capability of turning off batting and pitching ratings in the game, but still be allowed to view fielding, baserunning, bunting, and endurance values, is artificial and dumb. Hardly a knock on OOTP2006 as one poster maintains, except to continue to offer the option of shutting off ratings in the first place. Just my opinion, of course.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

I don't think I agree with you two guys on this, but from an aesthetic rather than pragmatic viewpoint. Ratings represent the judgment and assessment of your scouts, coaching staff, and media, without which, yes, you would have no way of knowing about such things as bunting ability. To have ratings off is to say there is no input available from any of these sources and all you have available are stat sheets in order to judge player quality. I say that there has never been nor will there ever be such a situation in real baseball and to have the capability of turning off batting and pitching ratings in the game, but still be allowed to view fielding, baserunning, bunting, and endurance values, is artificial and dumb. Hardly a knock on OOTP2006 as one poster maintains, except to continue to offer the option of shutting off ratings in the first place. Just my opinion, of course.

I actually agree with you but I look at it differently because I hate the amount of work the new game requires to get scouting done, so I don't play with scouts. Therefore, if I'm going to play with ratings, they're going to be actual ratings. I actually just prefer to play with the ratings on but at a lower scale so it's hard to tell the difference between players, but I can see how in some cases people might prefer to have them off completely.

That said, I think you can get a good sense of baserunning and endurance values from the stats without the ratings. Fielding is a little more challenging because you have no idea if a player is even passable at a position until you try him there. It's hard from just fielding stats to tell how good a fielder really is. You really need to see how he positions himself and how he reacts to the ball. Bunting is similar to me. It's hard to tell how good a bunter someone is just from bunting stats. You need to watch the guy. I said earlier that if you were to play the games out, then this wouldn't be much of a problem becuase you'd be closely watching each game and experimenting. However, if you're the type of person who likes to play seasons quickly or in an online league, you don't really have that option.

[1998 Yankees]

Your second paragraph is all about why you need ratings in the game. My point is, if you cannot do without ratings in some aspects, then you might as well have them in all aspects, scouted or actual. That's just realistic to me. No one is going to be judged just on his fielding, bunting, and baserunning.

Others may prefer the challenge of no ratings except what is absolutely necessary, however. I understand that. But for a baseball simulation game that prides itself on realism, one can hardly fault OOTP2006 for not providing an unrealistic situation like that as an option. Someone can ask that his enjoyable challenge be restored in 2007, as I am sure has been done elsewhere, but he can hardly say that 6.5 "dominates" in this aspect, IMO.

Anyway, as a result of this discussion with you and others on this thread, I am changing my game play style to make ratings broader and more subtle, maybe the 2-8 if not the 1-5 range that was discussed above, to allow for less exact rating assessments. At the same time, I will continue to extensively use past statistics whenever available. This combination is the most realistic to me, and therefore the most satisfying.

[Twelvefield]

I really like the 2-8 ratings myself. Instead of doing math, the numbers are representative of descriptors:

2=worst
3=worse
4=bad
5=satisfactory/median
6=good
7=better
8=best

It's just easier to use the number rather than the word, but that's what these particular numbers mean. They're not so much meant to be added up arithmetically.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by Twelvefield

I really like the 2-8 ratings myself. Instead of doing math, the numbers are representative of descriptors:

2=worst
3=worse
4=bad
5=satisfactory/median
6=good
7=better
8=best

It's just easier to use the number rather than the word, but that's what these particular numbers mean. They're not so much meant to be added up arithmetically.

Another thing that I like about 2-8 (or 20-80) is that it aligns well with the overall current / potential ratings scale of 20-80, which cannot be changed. I used 1-100 until this became a bit confusing when looking at the overall ratings.