Does OOTP Player Development Needs to Be Fixed?

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Its rather clear that the community thinks there's an issue with development. Markus can no longer say the minority are the only ones that think there's a problem with development.

To shorten the question, "Should issues be fixed?" I'm not sure that many people would ever answer that "no". I'm all for making positive changes, but I think that IL is right in saying that the query is a bit biased.

[truthserum]

If people had a bunch of 5 star prospects, that just didn't develop, instead of downgrading, so you know right away.......wouldn't people just gripe about that just as much?

To me, I would be frustrated to no end, not seeing 5 star guys develop, over knowing my prospect just got jacked and I can move on.

[conception]

Originally Posted by truthserum

If people had a bunch of 5 star prospects, that just didn't develop, instead of downgrading, so you know right away.......wouldn't people just gripe about that just as much?

To me, I would be frustrated to no end, not seeing 5 star guys develop, over knowing my prospect just got jacked and I can move on.

Thats essentially what I was saying as well.

[truthserum]

Jeezus....you want to see people complaining about player development.....change downgrades to just players not developing.

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by truthserum

Jeezus....you want to see people complaining about player development.....change downgrades to just players not developing.

Oh you mean like in real life?

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by Nutlaw

To shorten the question, "Should issues be fixed?" I'm not sure that many people would ever answer that "no". I'm all for making positive changes, but I think that IL is right in saying that the query is a bit biased.

Option 1 - Yes theres a problem and its important to fix
Option 2 - yes theres a problem and its not that important to fix
Option 3 - there's no problem.

I know you and IL disagree with me on this but rather than try and argue the overwhelming evidence in the poll AND the comments in this thread that people see problems with the development engine, show us that there are no issue.

[RonCo]

Good luck.

[RonCo]

I assume it's a moot point at the moment, though.

[Ambermonk]

There's probably not much that can be done for OOTP 9, but I hope that this thread will get somebody's attention for a future release.

[BruceM]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Its rather clear that the community thinks there's an issue with development. Markus can no longer say the minority are the only ones that think there's a problem with development.

71 people is the community?

[Nutlaw]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

Option 3 - there's no problem.

This is not how you phrased the option. You phrased it as a question, as though the people choosing it were merely ignorant of an undeniable problem. I was merely reaffirming that if you wish your poll to actually carry some weight, you need to make sure that it is phrased fairly.

By all means, carry on. I have testing to do.

[EMSoccerCoach]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

In general, 22 year old players don't gain skill then lose that skill. Instead they never had it. OOTP gives them that skill, then removes it.

Probably the best, simplest and most succinct description of the problem I've seen here. Well done.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

I know you and IL disagree with me on this but rather than try and argue the overwhelming evidence in the poll AND the comments in this thread that people see problems with the development engine, show us that there are no issue.

Not sure what you're referring to when you say I disagree with you- I do agree with you that there are issues with development in OOTP-2007 (I'll reserve judgment about OOTP-9 though until I see some data). Where we may disagree is on how informative this poll is about the feelings of the community; there I agree with all of what Nutlaw has said above.

By asking the right questions, you can get a poll to say almost anything. When I mentioned Gallup, it wasn't an entirely flippant comment. They get paid real money to poll for a reason- they can minimize bias in their questions.

[SittingDuck]

Fine, fine guys. Sidetracking here...

It will be interesting to see how this poll ultimately pans out. Sometimes I wonder if there shouldn't be separate forum where they have mirrored links to all the polls in the whole forum? That way people might weigh in more.

Idea there for the mods.

Sidetracking, sidetracking.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by truthserum

If people had a bunch of 5 star prospects, that just didn't develop, instead of downgrading, so you know right away.......wouldn't people just gripe about that just as much?

To me, I would be frustrated to no end, not seeing 5 star guys develop, over knowing my prospect just got jacked and I can move on.

No, because IRL you still have hope for player X, but finally just come to the conclusion he may never get there, you are never told outright, "he'll never get there"

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

No, because IRL you still have hope for player X, but finally just come to the conclusion he may never get there, you are never told outright, "he'll never get there"

Arbitrary facts like how it works in real life won't convince them if the already aren't. Its much more realistic to know immediately when a guy is toast. Just look at how quickly real GM's know when a player is done

[truthserum]

Sorry...you can roll your eyes all you want. People are going to gripe to no end if they think they have a bunch of 5 star prospects and they just don't develop. I understand your point....I just don't agree that this some kind of important "realism" that needs to be implemented into the game. People already started complaining that they would only get a top 100 prospect list once a year. Sounds like people want to know how their prospects are doing to me.

[PSUColonel]

I think you are being sarcastic, and if so I think you misunderstood. I think potential should remain constant, and it's the actual ratings that should change. In fact, once a player gets to a certain point, (and I don't know what that point is, because it would need to vary for each individual player) that potentials should no longer even be a factor anymore. So I say, just keep the potentials, and if you don't see a player improving, you should be bright enough to realize at some point you may have a problem on your hands. Why on earth would anyone want to make it automatic. That completely detracts from the point of the game. I think people are really starting too forget that this is a GM game that plays into the future. It does other things too, but this is the crux of the game. I get the feeling people around here are trying to turn OOTP into a "replay" or purely a "simulation".

[jarmenia]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I think you are being sarcastic, and if so I think you misunderstood. I think potential should remain constant, and it's the actual ratings that should change. In fact, once a player gets to a certain point, (and I don't know what that point is, because it would need to vary for each individual player) that potentials should no longer even be a factor anymore. So I say, just keep the potentials, and if you don't see a player improving, you should be bright enough to realize at some point you may have a problem on your hands. Why on earth would anyone want to make it automatic. That completely detracts from the point of the game. I think people are really starting too forget that this is a GM game that plays into the future. It does other things too, but this is the crux of the game. I get the feeling people around here are trying to turn OOTP into a "replay" or purely a "simulation".

Just to clarify I completely agree with you 100%

[ctorg]

Originally Posted by jarmenia

There are two potentials in RL. A player's actual potential that none of us know about (god given ability), and the potential that scouts give a player in RL based on whatever a scout uses to judge that stuff. You're talking about the potential a scout assigns the player vs what his god given ability is.

Not quite.

What I am saying is that a player's actual potential changes over time. For instance, let's say I've got a guy who was drafted in the 14th round. He doesn't look like much. He's never going to be much the way he is. He has a low potential.

Then he learns something new. He makes adjustments. He changes his stance. He manages to work his way into becoming a legit prospect. He increases his potential.

You may argue that he always had the potential but the scouts didn't see it. I say that all players really have around the same potential. Just about anyone can turn into a superstar. Really. It's a matter of figuring the best approach to the game for them. I seriously doubt there's much of an inborn skill difference between A-Rod and some of the scrubs who never make the majors. Maybe some, like running speed, but not much. But A-Rod has figured out how to play the game in a way that makes optimal use of his skills.

Incredibly fast and coordinated people with great raw skills don't necessarily make great baseball players.

If we knew everyone's potential in advance, it wouldn't make sense to even include low potential players in the draft, since we would know with certainty that they would never become major league players. There would be no reason to keep low potential players in the minors, even, since you would know for a fact that they would never develop into anything.