The 255 bug bites again!

[RMc]

One thing that always bothered me about the old OOTPs is that it couldn't handle anything above 255: if a player scored, drove in or allowed more than 255 runs in a season, it would reset to zero.

I was told in this thread that the problem had been alleviated, along with the dreaded 25-year maxium career problem. So I put together a hyper-offensive softball-type league, and...and...

...and let's just say the league MVP batted .690 with 89 home runs and 23 RBI. In other words, the 255 bug is back. Damn.

I also tried a season of more than 255 games, starting February 1st. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but the game won't allow a season to begin that early, and it insists on playing an exhibition schedule. (Can't these meaningless games be turned off or something?) The season started April 1st, and ran through December 31st, for a total of...exactly 255 games. Uh-huh.

Look, the game is great. I realized I haven't begun to tap its potential. But I was told this was a "rebuild" and the 255 bug wouldn't strike again...grrrrr.

[RMc]

One thing that always bothered me about the old OOTPs is that it couldn't handle anything above 255: if a player scored, drove in or allowed more than 255 runs in a season, it would reset to zero.

I was told in this thread that the problem had been alleviated, along with the dreaded 25-year maxium career problem. So I put together a hyper-offensive softball-type league, and...and...

...and let's just say the league MVP batted .690 with 89 home runs and 23 RBI. In other words, the 255 bug is back. Damn.

I also tried a season of more than 255 games, starting February 1st. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but the game won't allow a season to begin that early, and it insists on playing an exhibition schedule. (Can't these meaningless games be turned off or something?) The season started April 1st, and ran through December 31st, for a total of...exactly 255 games. Uh-huh.

Look, the game is great. I realized I haven't begun to tap its potential. But I was told this was a "rebuild" and the 255 bug wouldn't strike again...grrrrr.

[SackAttack]

I seem to recall from a programming class years ago that most arrays run from 0 to 255. I never saw this pop up in previous versions, so I don't know what they did to fix it, but that would probably explain the issue.

[Le Grande Orange]

It is not a bug, it is a database design limitation.

And, yes, the exact same issue you're describing came up in testing. The explanation is that Markus changed some statistical categories over so that the 255 storage limit didn't affect them anymore. The particular categories changed were the ones which historically came close to or exceeded a 255 unit value.

However, other categories which historically did not come that close to topping 255 were left unchanged. I believe RBIs were one of those, since the MLB record at 191 is well below 255. So with traditional baseball usage it was considered extremely unlikely that the 255 limit would be exceeded.

However, Markus didn't count on some folks doing really off-the-wall leagues with hyperactive run production, and as a result some of the numbers in such unusual leagues will roll over if they go past 255. In hindsight he wishes he had included a few more statistical categories exempt from the 255 limit, but it's too late now - it was a design decision he'd already implemented. It's going to stay that way for this version at the very least, since changing the database structure has considerable impact on importing leagues from previous versions.

So your only solution is to tone down the offensive capabilities of your league.

[MorseMoose]

I don't think that the RBI record of 191 is well below 255. For statistics, I don't think there should be a 255 bug. I can understand a schedule or limitations that RMc ran into...but not stats.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

I don't think that the RBI record of 191 is well below 255. For statistics, I don't think there should be a 255 bug. I can understand a schedule or limitations that RMc ran into...but not stats.

The highest level achieved in major league history (191 RBIs) is only three-quarters (74.9% to be precise) of the way to 255. So if someone is running a league with realistic totals, the odds of having 255 breached is extremely unlikely. The major league record of 73 HRs in one season is just over one-quarter (28.6% to be precise) of the way to 255. The chances of that being breached in anything other than a extremely unusual league is nil.

Considering the huge numbers of players who want realistic statistical totals, designing database limitations with them in mind is not unreasonable.

[RMc]

It is not a bug, it is a database design limitation.

Well, now, that sure makes me feel better. Not.

However, Markus didn't count on some folks doing really off-the-wall leagues with hyperactive run production, and as a result some of the numbers in such unusual leagues will roll over if they go past 255. In hindsight he wishes he had included a few more statistical categories exempt from the 255 limit, but it's too late now - it was a design decision he'd already implemented.

In other words, they could have fixed it, but they didn't want to be bothered. Spiffy.

I don't think that the RBI record of 191 is well below 255. For statistics, I don't think there should be a 255 bug. I can understand a schedule or limitations that RMc ran into...but not stats.

Bingo. Why limit things to 255...or at all, really?

Sigh.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by RMc

I also tried a season of more than 255 games, starting February 1st. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but the game won't allow a season to begin that early, and it insists on playing an exhibition schedule. The season started April 1st, and ran through December 31st, for a total of...exactly 255 games.

That may be an issue with the schedule generator though; it could be a lot of things. If the same thing happens with a manually created and imported schedule file, then that's something different.

[MorseMoose]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The highest level achieved in major league history (191 RBIs) is only three-quarters (74.9% to be precise) of the way to 255. So if someone is running a league with realistic totals, the odds of having 255 breached is extremely unlikely. The major league record of 73 HRs in one season is just over one-quarter (28.6% to be precise) of the way to 255. The chances of that being breached in anything other than a extremely unusual league is nil.

Considering the huge numbers of players who want realistic statistical totals, designing database limitations with them in mind is not unreasonable.

You change some settings to higher than MLB averages and you could easily get over 255. 191*1.5=286.5. You have 1.5 more HRs, 1.5 more Hits, I'm sure you could EASILY get more than 255 RBIs.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by RMc

Well, now, that sure makes me feel better. Not.

It is best to describe it accurately, yes? Terminology does matter sometimes.

A bug is an unintended error in the code. A design limitation is exactly what it says it is - a limitation in the design.

Originally Posted by RMc

Bingo. Why limit things to 255...or at all, really?

Ask Markus - he's the one who made the design decision. He obviously had good reasons to do so, even if you don't agree with them. Presumably database space was one of the major issues involved.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

You change some settings to higher than MLB averages and you could easily get over 255. 191*1.5=286.5. You have 1.5 more HRs, 1.5 more Hits, I'm sure you could EASILY get more than 255 RBIs.

Which by definition is well outside the expected normal range which the game is intended to replicate.

The game is being pulled in two different directions - those who want it to be able to replicate virtually any scenario, no matter how unlikely or how little that scenario resembles reality, and those who want it to focus on an accurate and highly realistic simulation.

At some point, design decisions have to be made as to which of these ends will lose out to some degree.

[Blackie]

One of the solo leagues that I like to run are hyper offensive leagues as well as vice versa so I too was really looking forward to the 255 limitation to be gone. A bit disappointed that it will still be there and cannot be fixed with any patches to the current game. Oh well. Were the runs scored and allowed the 255 limitations fixed?

[Le Grande Orange]

Asked and answered here: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=120673

Can't decide which thread should get the lion's share of the attention, but the other one is getting more comments at the moment.

[Le Grande Orange]

I'll see if I can find out precisely which statistical categories are affected and which are not.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by MorseMoose

You change some settings to higher than MLB averages and you could easily get over 255. 191*1.5=286.5. You have 1.5 more HRs, 1.5 more Hits, I'm sure you could EASILY get more than 255 RBIs.

Right: 1.5x more HRs *than normal*, 1.5x more hits *than normal*, etc.

Is it normal for a player to drive in 190+ or hit 70+?

That's the thing. It's not outside the realm of statistical possibility, but to say that you could EASILY get more than 255 RBIs with a modifier of 1.5x is overstating the case quite a bit.

For example, going back to 1980, only 6 of the last 50 league leaders in RBIs have surpassed 150, with Manny Ramirez's 165 RBI in 2001 being the highest total since Jimmie Foxx drove in 175 in 1938.

In fact, Jimmie Foxx is the last player in major league history whose total, multiplied by 1.5, would have surpassed 255.

Yeah, it can happen, but a) it wouldn't be a routine thing, and b) you're talking about an historical season taking place, and then being multiplied by 1.5, before you hit the database limit.

[canadiancreed]

Ask Markus - he's the one who made the design decision. He obviously had good reasons to do so, even if you don't agree with them. Presumably database space was one of the major issues involved.

I do know that the next step up from 255 is 65536, which is using a new datatype to store the information, and if repeated enough may hae issue with size and even performance (i'm no c++ programmer so the resource hit is beyond me).

[Theonlystd]

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

I do know that the next step up from 255 is 65536, which is using a new datatype to store the information, and if repeated enough may hae issue with size and even performance (i'm no c++ programmer so the resource hit is beyond me).

something like that..

The next one uses more memory. Not a big amount..

But you figure in how many times the RBI totals would have to be saved.

Your really making the Memory go up in size.


And then poeple would complain about performance and size of the leagues...

[Ivan Normal]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we told that the 255 issue would be gone in the new release? If so, this is disappointing. I know I was at least under the impression this would be the case.

It's never affected me, admittedly, but I see no reason it couldn't at some point.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by Theonlystd

something like that..

The next one uses more memory. Not a big amount..

But you figure in how many times the RBI totals would have to be saved.

Your really making the Memory go up in size.


And then poeple would complain about performance and size of the leagues...

you mean they dont' already?

but yes you are right. I dont' remember the names and to be blunt it realyl doesnt' matter, but going from a container that stores up to a value of 255,and one that goes up to a value of 65536 is double the size. So for everything that would store such a value that's dobule the memory and possibly disk space to be used.

Makes you think doesn't it?

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Ivan Normal

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't we told that the 255 issue would be gone in the new release? If so, this is disappointing. I know I was at least under the impression this would be the case.

Let's just say that in normal usage with leagues set up in with reasonably realistic league totals, you're never going to run into this problem.

If however you set up a league with very high offensive production numbers, totals which are well outside what can be considered realistic, then you might run into the problem.