Leader Board question

[Kyros]

As an avid user of Catobase for my MP league and solo league catobase allowed you to customize the amount of players that can/could be seen on any given leader board statistical data. For example, I always choose to see 300 150 leaders on my leader boards for all of my stats for single-season leaders, caeere league leaders, & team leaders. Will the new SIO almanac allow us to view a customized viw on how many we want to see on leader boads in the almanac or is it a set numer? If it is indeed a set number, what set/default number is it? And if it is not a set number therefore giving us (or allowing us to set an amount of leaders we may see on any given leader board) what is the maximum and minimums? Thanks and I apogize if this has already been answered. I've seen that it was asked but I did not see an answer for it.

Thansk again and I am awaiting in great anticipation for this (IMO) a new standard in text simulations. The screen shots and blogs are great.

[Kyros]

None of the beta testers know this?

[Kyros]

Bump.

Has this been answered or something? If so I apologize but I truely didn't find an answer to this question. The beta testers have to know the answer to this, Im sure of that. And while I understand they are under an NDA contract - after reading all of the blogs and many of the posts here in this main OOTPBB2006 general discussion forum for the last 4 days I have to believe that this/these question(s) isn't an "out of the realm" type question as to where it would be a non disclosure type question. So I ask again, please could someone please answer the questions I asked in post #1. I would very much appreciate that. Thank you & cheers mates.

[jbsnadb]

I'm no authority (read: NOT a beta tester) but I believe this may be one of those things that continues to evolve, so there is no concrete answer for this yet.

[Kyros]

Thanks for the reply.

I would imagine that giving us the ability to at the very least have 100-200 leaders on any given leader board would be the best choice for us. Now for me, I may use onnly 100 but I may want to see 200 at some point down the road if my leagues hits the 100 season mark. Get my drift?

[Kyros]

Since no one on the beta testing team (or Markus for that matter) will answer this, I'm starting to feel not very good about this. My suspicion is that the leader board will be a set number - set to a very low number at that. I really hope that we will be able to see more than 10, 25, or even 50 leaders on a leader board. If the default is 100 then so beit but since no one "in the know" will answer this question I am going to assume that the leader board in the new almanac will be a very washed out version of Catobase which would be a shame. If this is the case I can then only image how rest of the new "SION" almanac will be stripped to a bare minimum.

By looking at the screen shots I was excited but that excitment is dwindling at a slow rate - at least for now.

[JWay]

i'd say its customizable, but i don't know, but I wouldn't let this get you down before you find an answer. A lot of things the beta testers can't answer with out getting their answer approved of first. ya

[Kyros]

Originally Posted by JWay

i'd say its customizable, but i don't know, but I wouldn't let this get you down before you find an answer. A lot of things the beta testers can't answer with out getting their answer approved of first. ya

I understand the NDA thing and getting approval but my questions are so trivial in that there are dozens of other questions that were/are asked that it would seem that this/these question(s) just seems so ......trivial. Thats the only way I can put it. It's not like I'm asking for an indepth data question about the leader boards but I am onnly asking how many leaders will we be able to see and if it will be customizable to where we could change it to where if we wanted to see 250 players on any given leader board. The lack of communication on this simple...very simple subject has me somewhat concerned now about the whole SION almanac. Maybe it's not what we all think it is. Maybe it (to put it bluntly)....maybe it downright just sucks. Not to get an attitude about it but if a simple question like this can not get answered it leads me to believe that maybe there are things under the surface thats haven't yet shown it's ugly head - which could potentially send possible cutomers elsewhere. Call it parinioa, call it going a bit over-board about this subject but something doesn't smell right to me all of a sudden.

It's not "getting me down", it's just frustrating me to sit here and knowing that this has been seen by testers and maybe even Markus himself w/o an answer. Maybe the question will not be to our liking and maybe if an answer is given it would raise other questions that no one from SI or OOTPD wants to deal with at this time.

Hey, I'm all for this game. I've been digging the blogs and screen shots. The amount of information we've all been told so far about this simulation is amazing. IMO, it's great public relations. I hope that we can get an answer for this because I know that I'm not the only one wanting to know this answer. At this point there has been over 175 views, so that tells me something.

Cheers.

[andymac]

Typically when they don't answer it means that Markus has it on a list of possible things to code, but it either isn't in yet or is currently being tested. You are just going to have to wait to find out. The fact that it is "trivial" should mean that you can at least do that (i.e. wait), you will know for sure in a couple weeks either way.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Kyros

At this point there has been over 175 views, so that tells me something.

and 8 posts, 4 of them yours. I'm sure there IS an answer, but right now I'm equally certain a lot of focus is going into fine tuning and examining a multitude of issues, large and small, all needing answers as well, now or later. You asked the question two days ago, and now you're ready to gather the bullies and start throwing rocks? Answers don't often come quite that quickly, especially now. Hang on and after a bit of looking into it (it's not the highest on my list right now, I'll admit that to you) I'll see if I'm able and/or allowed to address your concern. k?

In the meantime, return to that great anticipation you mentioned in one of your first posts. I don't think you'll find it unfounded. Cheers to you too.

[Kyros]

Originally Posted by endgame

and 8 posts, 4 of them yours. I'm sure there IS an answer, but right now I'm equally certain a lot of focus is going into fine tuning and examining a multitude of issues, large and small, all needing answers as well, now or later. You asked the question two days ago, and now you're ready to gather the bullies and start throwing rocks? Answers don't often come quite that quickly, especially now. Hang on and after a bit of looking into it (it's not the highest on my list right now, I'll admit that to you) I'll see if I'm able and/or allowed to address your concern. k?

In the meantime, return to that great anticipation you mentioned in one of your first posts. I don't think you'll find it unfounded. Cheers to you too.

Well, I didn't mean any harm or how you say "throwing rocks and gathering of the bullies" - although I do like the way you put it.

Thanks for trying to uncover one of the great mysterious (kidding of course). My talking tuff wasn't meant, in any way, to throw down the gauntlet of conspiracy or any other hidden agendas. I became a fan of OOTPBB at the end of the old ERA in 6.5 and of course I was one of those who wished we could import our careers/leagues but I've been a bit quiet about that because I know that this was done for the betterment of the game. Although my solo 5 year career will die via a nuclear war I will just pick up the pieces and begin to carve out even a better baseball universe than I could have ever imagined - all this because of OOTPBB2006 and SIs' input/involvment.

I'm a socceer head as well so I have faith in what SI can do and with OOTPD on board now I will place wagers that OOTPBB2006 will become the best baseball sim on the market. It pains me to say that since I followed PSBB for so long but version 6.5 had me at "Milestones".

In all seriousness, thanks endgame for the effort. I do really appreciate it.

[Kyros]

Well, I wrote this over at Matrix for Shaun to read because I had asked the same question there. And since I've been a PS'er for most of my baseball text life but OOTP6.5 brought me over here (thanks to the rare-feats and milestones stats) and I've been mainly playing that since, I think I'll post here what I posted over there. Basically, this is my suggestion as to why I think & believe that it is important to have leaderboards deep in terms of players that are seen on leaderboards. Maybe then SI & OOTPD will see why I am so crazy over this. Me being a history buff from Alexander the Great to sports simulations and it's depth I get lost, on purpose, in history because it brings back memories and if I weren't there it allows me to relive what, in this case, a baseball player lived in years past. Call me crazy but thats just me I guess.

*Allow the user to adjust the number of players seen on any given leaderboard. Now, I wouldn't go as far as having 1000 players to be seen but maybe 350 maximum. The significance in this is that since records are meant to be broken, overtime players will fall out of these leaderboards and players that held records from the early 1900's will eventually not be seen (again, this is taking into consideration any statistical tracked data on the new almanac). To combat this and allow for century old records to stand it would be in the best interest of the league and user to have records that are that old to still be seen on these leaderboards. This will allow and give the end-user that unmatched feeling of, what I call, longevity in history. Old players from the past will still have the glory to be seen vs modern day stars & icons.

[Marc Duffy]

Kyros my love, I will get you an answer today since I see you've been waiting (patiently?!? ) for a few days

[Kyros]

Originally Posted by Marc Duffy

Kyros my love, I will get you an answer today since I see you've been waiting (patiently?!? ) for a few days

Not so patiently, I will admit that Marc.

Did you read my post I posted here posted at 1:06AM? This is where I'm coming from love. Call me nutty crazy but theres a place in my heart for the old folks that had something to say one hundred years ago. It didn't matter if it were said with a bat, an arm or their legs they, the ones who gave the writers a reason to invent the record books a very long time ago, again they the players have a right to be seen. They were the ones who invented the records - they should be seen.


Like I wrote, I understand that there has to be a stopping point somewhere down the road and that seeing 1000 players on a leaderboard may not be feasable or needed but at least give the thought of 350 or maybe even 500. Let the user decided, just give the user a maximum. Me, obviously I'd pick the highest possible.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Kyros

As an avid user of Catobase for my MP league and solo league catobase allowed you to customize the amount of players that can/could be seen on any given leader board statistical data. For example, I always choose to see 300 150 leaders on my leader boards for all of my stats for single-season leaders, caeere league leaders, & team leaders. Will the new SIO almanac allow us to view a customized viw on how many we want to see on leader boads in the almanac or is it a set numer? If it is indeed a set number, what set/default number is it? And if it is not a set number therefore giving us (or allowing us to set an amount of leaders we may see on any given leader board) what is the maximum and minimums? Thanks and I apogize if this has already been answered. I've seen that it was asked but I did not see an answer for it.

Thansk again and I am awaiting in great anticipation for this (IMO) a new standard in text simulations. The screen shots and blogs are great.

There's a set number, which is 100... no way to customize this.

[jbsnadb]

That's longer than I expected. Our friend may be disappointed, however...

[SSG Troyer]

Well, I'm mildly disappointed. In previous editions, if memory serves (and it has failed in the recent past), we had 10, 25, 50, and 100 selectable with the click of a button. Fixing this at 100 seems a step back.

But, what the hey. It's fixed at the largest number ... just not as large as Mr. Kyros would like ...

[jbsnadb]

I guess I always had mine set at 25 before.

[Kyros]

Originally Posted by jbsnadb

That's longer than I expected. Our friend may be disappointed, however...

Actually, the set number is larger than I had thought. 100 is a good start, however, sure I would like to see more and I would like to have the option to set it at any number (of course, they would still be preset numbers such as 25, 50, 75, 100. 150, 200. 250, 300, 350).

Markus, would this be something that could be added in a future patch/update?

And thank you for answering this question.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Kyros

Actually, the set number is larger than I had thought. 100 is a good start, however, sure I would like to see more and I would like to have the option to set it at any number (of course, they would still be preset numbers such as 25, 50, 75, 100. 150, 200. 250, 300, 350).

Markus, would this be something that could be added in a future patch/update?

And thank you for answering this question.

Handled with class, Kyros.