[thomamon]

Originally Posted by satchel

While I have great gratitude to RonCo for his hard work and dedication, this "1000 hours in the last year" figure is an exaggeration. There's no way.

That would be eight hours a day, five days a week, for half the year. Or close to three hours a day, for 365 straight days.

A full-time job is about 2000 hours a year.

I worked with him on the beta team often. Many people put in many hours and I can honestly say I doubt he was exaggeration. Just reading his reports shows you how much he put in.

For a guy who put in as much as he did, there is no reason to doubt what he says. He was the #1 member of the beta team and I for one am sad to see him go.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by thomamon

For a guy who put in as much as he did, there is no reason to doubt what he says.

I have to agree.

Originally Posted by thomamon

I for one am sad to see him go.

That's two of us.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by Isura

That's only 2.7 hours/day for a year. I can see it!

Although I play OOTP about twice that much, most people don't have my fortitude...or "the love."

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by satchel

Although I play OOTP about twice that much, most people don't have my fortitude...or "the love."

Don't take this as a shot, because it isn't, this is in the way of a friendly comment, but you make too many unfounded assumptions about other people and OOTP.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

...you make too many unfounded assumptions about other people and OOTP.

Evidence? (And we should continue this discussion in Off topic or by PM.)

[Matter2003]

Originally Posted by Curtis

It doesn't look as though RonCo will be back to answer that. He's decided that Markus is ignoring his work, so his efforts would be better spent on some other project. He wrote that he doesn't PLAN to be posting here anymore.

A great loss to the community.

I agree on both accounts....

I have the same feelings on a lot of things that are pretty clearly demonstrated to be in need of reworking, only to see the focus turn to things that are really filler....

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by satchel

Evidence?

Your own posts, and this is over.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Matter2003

I have the same feelings on a lot of things that are pretty clearly demonstrated to be in need of reworking, only to see the focus turn to things that are really filler...

This is a big problem, all right.

[satchel]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Your own posts, and this is over.

Agreed.

[teampunjabi]

So what are some realistic aging / development settings for the newest patch of OOTP. Or were these settings tested with the new patch

[Matter2003]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

I have to agree.

I also agree...RonCo along with a few others did terrific statistical work on the beta teams...

Originally Posted by The Wolf

That's two of us.

Make that 3

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by satchel

While I have great gratitude to RonCo for his hard work and dedication, this "1000 hours in the last year" figure is an exaggeration. There's no way.

That would be eight hours a day, five days a week, for half the year. Or close to three hours a day, for 365 straight days.

A full-time job is about 2000 hours a year.

Just now seeing this. Not that it matters, but I have a very fulltime job, and I guarantee I spent well over 1,000 hours in a year working on OOTP. It would not be surprising to find I spent closer to 2,000 hours. On occasion, I'm sure I slip up, but I am not prone to exaggeration. If I don't have data to back up what I say, I tend to under-estimate...but if I have data I rarely hold much back.

[satchel]

RonCo, I'm sorry for what I said, which was pure speculation. I was in a sceptical mood. I should realize that a numbers man like yourself would not provide inaccurate totals.

Doubting you was uncalled for and ungentlemanly, and I apologize. I am happy to hear from you again.

[RonCo]

no problemo.

[myasu]

I know it is none of my business, but I just wanted to say....

I am so happy to see the last several posts by RonCo and satchel. Sophisticated exchanges by two adults, that I do not see these days around the Web...

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by myasu

I know it is none of my business, but I just wanted to say....

I am so happy to see the last several posts by RonCo and satchel. Sophisticated exchanges by two adults, that I do not see these days around the Web...

Yep, it's good to see people being civil with each otehr for once.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I assume it's to attempt to model Tango's selection criteria, but doing that misses the entire point of the exercise. IL and I have gone around on this about a hundred times, though, and I really have zero energy left for doing it again. He's still a beta, and I'm not.

Man, just saw this now. I also don't want to go around on this again, only explain my side: If I want to see if OOTP matches up with Tango, I want to apply the Tango test in OOTP to the same players Tango looked at in real life. Otherwise, it's apples and oranges, as far as I can tell. So that's what we did in beta. Tango's studies don't include players who dropped out of MLB. If you include these dropouts when you analyze OOTP development, you're not calculating Tango curves at all. Not sure what about that 'misses the entire point of the exercise'.

And there was a decent match between OOTP and Tango at one point in beta (still with some pitcher issues), but some late tweaks may have thrown things off. Many people requested that random potential drops be replaced with injury-driven potential drops - they wanted to see a reason behind dropping potential. No one presented any data to support this change, and it should never have been made, according to my analysis of real life stats of players before and after serious injury. This needs to be fixed before development as a whole has any chance of being right.

[RonCo]

Originally Posted by injury log

Man, just saw this now. I also don't want to go around on this again, only explain my side: If I want to see if OOTP matches up with Tango, I want to apply the Tango test in OOTP to the same players Tango looked at in real life. Otherwise, it's apples and oranges, as far as I can tell. So that's what we did in beta. Tango's studies don't include players who dropped out of MLB. If you include these dropouts when you analyze OOTP development, you're not calculating Tango curves at all. Not sure what about that 'misses the entire point of the exercise'.

And there was a decent match between OOTP and Tango at one point in beta (still with some pitcher issues), but some late tweaks may have thrown things off. Many people requested that random potential drops be replaced with injury-driven potential drops - they wanted to see a reason behind dropping potential. No one presented any data to support this change, and it should never have been made, according to my analysis of real life stats of players before and after serious injury. This needs to be fixed before development as a whole has any chance of being right.

Tango ignores data of players who did not have a large enough sample size of stats merely to eliminate (or reduce) the influence of random variance. If stats didn't have random variance, he wouldn't pull them out. His goal is essentially to find out how a real player's "true ratings" progress over time.

In studying OOTP, we don't need to do that because we have their true ratings.

The main value of Tango's study is to use "qualified" data to predict how other players will progress. This is, for example, why a guy who is 26 and still stuck in the minors is generally considered to be done--because the _rule of thumb_ is that players peak at 27 (regardless of level). I agree there is little data to say that "regardless of level" part with 100% faith, but my opinion is that it's the best concept available and should be used until some other model is devised that makes more sense and is easily converted into a game environment. I understand you don't agree with me. Fair enough. You win.

I obviously have no idea of whether there was a match during beta testing or not, but I can tell you that--with injuries turned off--the match is worse in v9 than it was in v2007 when played at default settings.

[injury log]

Originally Posted by RonCo

I obviously have no idea of whether there was a match during beta testing or not, but I can tell you that--with injuries turned off--the match is worse in v9 than it was in v2007 when played at default settings.

That's no surprise, given how things were changed. The injury/development link is wrong right now - random drops were replaced with injury-induced drops - and with injuries off, I don't know what the game does to compensate. It's something to work on in this year's beta.

As for the rest, like you I don't want an extended discussion - I just wanted to make clear that there are legitimate reasons to disagree on the subject.

Good to see you back in these parts, by the way.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by injury log

That's no surprise, given how things were changed. The injury/development link is wrong right now - random drops were replaced with injury-induced drops - and with injuries off, I don't know what the game does to compensate. It's something to work on in this year's beta.

As for the rest, like you I don't want an extended discussion - I just wanted to make clear that there are legitimate reasons to disagree on the subject.

Good to see you back in these parts, by the way.

It does nothing in OOTP 9 to offset the missing injuries. In real life, if players would not bet injured, the talent of the league would be higher as well, so I did not see a reason to artificially change the development routines when injuries are not set to default or switched off.