Ootp2007: Trade proposals - can we have the option...

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by dim13

How do you see that the option would make the game more complicated ? You probably wouldn't be changing the option once it's set. The default can be set to the way it is in now OOTP2006. It would just be an additional check-box either in league settings or in manager preferences.

You're right, of course. It would be a minor thing. But it would be one more thing, and I am thinking back to the monumental job of setting up my original "universe." Granted, that universe was much too big (368 teams) and I have downsized considerably since then. Like I said above, through options and customizing capability, OOTPB has tried to accommodate everyone. I say keep on going this way as long as they can deliver a quality product.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This is not needed

Oh it's needed, it's more needed then anything else in the game.

The trading interface sucks, and couldn't possibly suck worse then it does.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by dim13

One more option wouldn't make that much of a difference.

Right, but when 100 people all have a different option they'd like to see and they all say one more option wouldn't make a difference, they're wrong, because in reality we're facing 100 more options. So who's do we accept as one more and who's do we say sorry, that's one too many?

I think the trade time works great right now, but that's just my opinion. Others may/will vary.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Oh it's needed, it's more needed then anything else in the game.

The trading interface sucks, and couldn't possibly suck worse then it does.

You are absolutely right, and I am trying to find the link to where Markus said that last month. If I remember right, he used much the same language.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by dim13

How do you see that the option would make the game more complicated ? You probably wouldn't be changing the option once it's set. The default can be set to the way it is in now OOTP2006. It would just be an additional check-box either in league settings or in manager preferences.

Originally Posted by BruceM

Right, but when 100 people all have a different option they'd like to see and they all say one more option wouldn't make a difference, they're wrong, because in reality we're facing 100 more options. So who's do we accept as one more and who's do we say sorry, that's one too many?

Ah, BruceM beat me to it, except that I was going to say '200' instead of '100'.

[dim13]

Originally Posted by BruceM

Right, but when 100 people all have a different option they'd like to see and they all say one more option wouldn't make a difference, they're wrong, because in reality we're facing 100 more options. So who's do we accept as one more and who's do we say sorry, that's one too many?

I think the trade time works great right now, but that's just my opinion. Others may/will vary.

Well this option is needed. In my opinion this is sorely missing from OOTP2006 that was in all previous versions.

[PSUColonel]

So in other words we might as well start calling the new game OOTP Option 2007, because if we continue down this path, the entire game is just going to be a bunch of options. I've said this before, this game cannot be all things to all people, and if Markus and SI try to make it just that, it will end up being no things to nobody. A line must be drawn somewhere.

[enuttage]

nm.

[bp_]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

So in other words we might as well start calling the new game OOTP Option 2007, because if we continue down this path, the entire game is just going to be a bunch of options. I've said this before, this game cannot be all things to all people, and if Markus and SI try to make it just that, it will end up being no things to nobody. A line must be drawn somewhere.

Well, if it can be coded to work properly I don't see what the big deal is.

[Assos]

Exactly. Why not have both? If they can turn off the scouts, I would think that they could code the trading wait time off. Of course, I know very little about coding and I might be shooting my mouth off without good solid info.

[battists]

Did someone quote me as being "the maestro" back there??

Meanwhile, I'm 100% certain that this suggestion made it to Markus (because I gave it to him), but I'm not certain as to what the final decision was.

He certainly won't switch it back completely to the "old way," so if anything happens on this front, I suspect it would be one of the global options for your saved game.

[Sweed]

I have no problem having it back if Markus puts it in and it's optional. Myself I'd be happy with a trade block where I could put players and hopefully get some offers.

With regard to the time delay system of v2006, I love it. I play one game so not being able to quick sim is not a problem.

An example of why I like the delay.
In my first v2006 season Pittsburgh had an all-star 3b, who was 26, and a 22 yr old rookie 3b also on the team that looked to be a stud if he got a chance to play. I made a very good offer for the 22 yr old. Pittsburgh comes back with a counter offer and we begin to negotiate. Over a two week period offers go back and forth. I found their counter offer to be very close except they wanted a pitcher I had at AA with some good upside. I thought it was one too many players to give. Countered adding a P they had in AA ball that looked to have a chance to develop, thought wasn't as good as the pitcher I'd be sending them. They turned it down.

I finally decided to bite the bullet and take the trade giving them my AA pitcher. Went to make the trade only to find they had dealt their 26 yr old to Arizona and put the 22 yr old in the every day lineup. So because I waited a day to long I missed out on what turned out to be the NL rookie of the year.
The kid put up big numbers and is still developing.

In 6.x and before I would have got the kid as I could of kept making offers until we reached a deal. With v2006 the time delay in negotiating cost me the player. Much more realistic, and though I was disappointed that I didn't get the kid I thought it was cool to see it work out the way it did. You snooze, you lose

[endgame]

Originally Posted by Sweed

I'd be happy with a trade block where I could put players and hopefully get some offers.

I'm good with that as a minimum, too; with the option of Discuss Trade in its current format.

[dim13]

Originally Posted by battists

Meanwhile, I'm 100% certain that this suggestion made it to Markus (because I gave it to him), but I'm not certain as to what the final decision was.

Great !! Thank you !!

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by battists

Did someone quote me as being "the maestro" back there??

Yes, maestro.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by bp_

Well, if it can be coded to work properly I don't see what the big deal is.

The problem is that I think might be unwise to continue introducing new elements to the game when there are so many other A.I. issues that clearly need fixing first.

I guess what I'm saying is, I can't beleive people are so concerned with these little issues that frankly take the game back to looking more like 6.5 rather than what it is (the future) when I can simpy stockpile tremendous amounts of talent via the waivr wire, and can do so uncontested from other teams. But the biggerissueis that many of these players should not beon the waiver wire in the first place. If the AI needs to rid of these players for whatever reason, it should be attempting to TRADE them. Please do't give me the no Ai is perfect argument either, because this is really bad. I just can't see worrying about these minute issues when there is clearly an 800 lb pound gorilla in the room. These types of issues should be dominating the bulk of OOTP 2007 discussions. I'll admit that is one thing FOF does right, it probbly has the best single player AI of any sports sim. It may not look pretty, but it's got it where it counts....under the hood.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

It may not look pretty, but it's got it where it counts....under the hood.

I think you might be mistaking aesthetics for functionality.

Obviously, your issue is a very big one, but for those of us that aren't playing the game any longer due to interface/ease-of-use issues, there is just as much immediacy in our requests.

I fail to understand how we can't move forward holistically as a community and progress yearly with all of these concerns.

To marginalize someone else's concern as less important in order to front your own concern is less than noble, and certainly self-interested. That's fine, but I'm not sure it's constructive to the project at hand.

[battists]

Everyone has issues that they feel are more important than others. PSU obviously feels strongly about the waiver thing, but in the games I've played, I honestly haven't seen the AI behavior be as extreme as he is experiencing. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue. More likely it's just that he's a better manager than I am. But, it also means that it doesn't feel like an 800-pound gorilla to me when I think of things that I feel are wrong with the game.

There is simply no practical way to create an |absolute| ranking of the priority of certain issues, so the development and beta teams do the best we can by grouping them generally:

High priority - game killing things like crashes
Medium priority - uh, medium priority things
Low priority - things that don't have a tremendous impact, such as problems with very marginal features, cosmetic issues, and things that are broken but have a valid workaround

It's not a novel approach to prioritizing issues, but it does allow us to entertain both the ideas in this thread and the waiver wire issues simultaneously.

So, I guess, count me as supporting the notion of bringing up whatever issues and ideas you feel are important, and we'll do our best to prioritize and work on them. And in some cases, for reasons of resources, or design, Markus may just decide he is not able to do implement some of those ideas.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by enuttage

I think you might be mistaking aesthetics for functionality.

Obviously, your issue is a very big one, but for those of us that aren't playing the game any longer due to interface/ease-of-use issues, there is just as much immediacy in our requests.

I fail to understand how we can't move forward holistically as a community and progress yearly with all of these concerns.

To marginalize someone else's concern as less important in order to front your own concern is less than noble, and certainly self-interested. That's fine, but I'm not sure it's constructive to the project at hand.

Why does someone always have to come along and start with the personal attacks? Why can't you just stay on topic? Your reply would have been fine had you ended it here - yearly with all of these concerns.

But instead you had to add in the personal attack by accusing PSUColonel of being less than noble and self interested. Those two statements have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

As far as the topic goes, tell me exactly what good does it do to add more options when the very basics of the game of baseball don't work correctly. You claim you can't play because of interface ease of use, but by adding more interface options to use you're suddenly going to be able to play?

I honestly believe your reply was nothing more than an attempt to provoke.

[battists]

Originally Posted by BruceM

As far as the topic goes, tell me exactly what good does it do to add more options when the very basics of the game of baseball don't work correctly.

BruceM, I think the reason that some see value in adding options is that many people disagree with your position that "the very basics of the game of baseball don't work correctly."

That is, not that they would not disagree with empirical evidence. But, for many people, some of the things that don't work don't bother them enough to hurt their enjoyment of the game.

For example, when I play the game, I'm mildly irked by some baseball issues, mildly irked by some interface issues, and generally enjoy playing the game. I don't get stressed out enough by it to argue against more options being added, and if I'm feeling particularly aggravated, I go do something else for a time. But, that's just the kind of guy I am.

There are other people for whom certain problems are "game-killers," and they can't enjoy the game while those problems exist. Depending on the person, those may be interface problems OR "baseball" problems.

And we go back in a circle again, because it all comes down to individual preference.

Steve