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

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by BruceM

What PSU and a lot of others, myself included, are asking for is realism.

Having an AI that dumps great prospects on waivers rather than trade them isn't realistic.

Having a trade option that gives an instant reply to your offer also isn't realistic.

This is a good post IMO. Realism should be given top priority. Realism should be the default. Variations from realistic play should be optional and be accommodated as much as possible without compromising the overall quality of the game. These should be prioritized by how much they are requested by the community.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by battists

Despite the new model being more "realistic," there are a large number of people who feel it's "too realistic," in the sense that they feel it adds an administrative and unenjoyable part of baseball into the game.

As OOTP is supposedly modelled after real baseball and is a very indepth text based sim that covers all those aspects of baseball (too realistic????? what the heck does that mean????) then perhaps OOTP isn't the game for them. By no means am I trying to be rude or just flat out say "find another sim if indepth realism isn't what you want", but I am saying before you buy something, look under the hood. OOTP isn't the only text based sim out there, and some others don't have the depth that OOTP does. Maybe they might be better suited to people who don't want "too realistic". (still scratching head over that term)

[enuttage]

Once again, I think a false dichotomy is being drawn between realism, and ease-of-use/style-of-play. Those two things are not mutually exclusive. I haven't heard too many people complain about the game being 'too realistic'. But maybe I'm missing it. It's likely given my absensce here of late.

Steve's pretty well covered that at this point, and I think an either/or view of it is detrimental to both the community and the game (although the devs and beta team are no doubt smarter than this, I believe).

[endgame]

Well. Tough thread.

I'm all for options. That being said, I agree with BruceM and 98 that the real focus of continued enhancement is actually improvement on the existing MLB model. That is, ensuring that all facets of the MLB system, included as options or defaults in a fictional league, work according to MLB rules and practices. In my opinion, advancement in this area - still with emphasis on AI - is the only significant imperative for any type of player. The process and its results must work without the incidents that provoke either rationalization or an excessive tolerance on the part of the player.

Most, if not all, of the more publicly debated AI issues have centered around areas like roster management, roster rules, trade rules, financial rules with regard to free agency, and even embracing pbp issues the idea of following a set of existing MLB parameters prevails: the framework provided in v2006 is an ambition that simply must be shorn up in v2007 to model baseball, modern baseball IMHO. If expansions and evolutions eventually include era-relative modifcations or options for the historical simmer (including auto-scheduling and finances), the better, but the primary aim should remain 'getting the rules right.' This, in itself, will address the majority of these occurences almost immediately on the front end and reduce their frequency even further, e.g. players being traded within days of signing.

I'm reluctant to be the necromancer digging up the old bone and making it dance, but this is an area that Malleus had right: put the MLB model first and then build around it with options and processes. Everything else should fall into place around it, so that the core of the game is not its customizability, but an accurate reflection of baseball. As Wallace Stevens said, "Reality is the base. But it is the base."

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by BruceM

(too realistic????? what the heck does that mean????)

Originally Posted by enuttage

Once again, I think a false dichotomy is being drawn between realism, and ease-of-use/style-of-play. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

As a long-time wargamer, I can tell you with great assurance that 'too realistic' is a code phrase for 'too complicated'. Some people believe that the more realistic you make a game the more unneccessary 'dirt' you add to the system.

You can see that dirt coming from the constant stream of people who ask for more options for everything under the sun, or who decry how the Rule Five Draft or some arcane roster rule is implemented. Among my friends I'm considered an extreme fan of realism, and I'm usually one of the first people to post saying 'good idea' to any new suggestion, but even I can see where this game is approaching its dirt limit.

It takes me twelve hours to set up a template for a league, then close to a hundred more hours to change the template to a quickstart. THEN I find that I've made an error in my template and need to start over. Yeah, I can see where people could find this game 'too realistic'.

[Bluenoser]

*

[sfgiants88]

Originally Posted by BruceM

As OOTP is supposedly modelled after real baseball and is a very indepth text based sim that covers all those aspects of baseball (too realistic????? what the heck does that mean????) then perhaps OOTP isn't the game for them. By no means am I trying to be rude or just flat out say "find another sim if indepth realism isn't what you want", but I am saying before you buy something, look under the hood. OOTP isn't the only text based sim out there, and some others don't have the depth that OOTP does. Maybe they might be better suited to people who don't want "too realistic". (still scratching head over that term)

Too realistic would be having to make travel arrangements for your teams.

[D Love]

Because in real life if I offer Jose Valentin for Lance Berkman to a GM, I probably don't get a chance to make a 2nd offer since I just insulted that GM. In OOTP, I can just propose a new deal. In fact, I can keep incrementally increasing my offer until I find what it takes to get someone. Not so in real life.

Therefore, allowing unlimited instant responses, or at least not offering an alternative option, makes it too easy to trade or, at least, terribly unrealistic.

Originally Posted by zekester91

But isn't this the age of cell phones, are you telling me that real GM's are making trades by snail mail, why is it dumbing down the game to get instant talking of trades. why are we forced to use an email system, why can't we pretend that the trading being done over the phone. I want to go forward to a time when GM's pick up the phone and will talk about trades now instead of having to wait till they bother to respond to my email.

[zekester91]

well, yes there needs to be some limit to how you can insult or try and cheat the computer, but you can still do that now, it just takes a few extra days. I've had negotiations last months tweeking it down to get the right deal, I wasn't trying to cheat the AI, a AI GM offered me something I thought was unresonable (my 5 star outfeilder for two middle of the road players) and he had a player I wanted so we negotated for two months durring the begining of the season to get a reasonable trade. the system should work a little faster than that.
There must be a better system out there than the wait 3 days for each responce and the instant everyone will cheat the system system. There needs to be if you offer say 3 bad trades in a row, that GM and possible others won't talk to you again.

[1998 Yankees]

Originally Posted by zekester91

There needs to be if you offer say 3 bad trades in a row, that GM and possible others won't talk to you again.

Aside from all of the other debate in this thread, this is another good idea. I remember from 6.5 that if you dissed a player in contract negotiations too often, he would not talk to you any more. Same thing should apply to GM's and trades (although it should be both ways, the AI should not come to you with obviously dumb deals either). Good thinking, zekester.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Aside from all of the other debate in this thread, this is another good idea. I remember from 6.5 that if you dissed a player in contract negotiations too often, he would not talk to you any more. Same thing should apply to GM's and trades (although it should be both ways, the AI should not come to you with obviously dumb deals either). Good thinking, zekester.

I also agree with this, especially if the OP's recommendation is implemented. It's a very neat idea.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by endgame

Well. Tough thread.

I'm all for options. That being said, I agree with BruceM and 98 that the real focus of continued enhancement is actually improvement on the existing MLB model. That is, ensuring that all facets of the MLB system, included as options or defaults in a fictional league, work according to MLB rules and practices. In my opinion, advancement in this area - still with emphasis on AI - is the only significant imperative for any type of player. The process and its results must work without the incidents that provoke either rationalization or an excessive tolerance on the part of the player.

Most, if not all, of the more publicly debated AI issues have centered around areas like roster management, roster rules, trade rules, financial rules with regard to free agency, and even embracing pbp issues the idea of following a set of existing MLB parameters prevails: the framework provided in v2006 is an ambition that simply must be shorn up in v2007 to model baseball, modern baseball IMHO. If expansions and evolutions eventually include era-relative modifcations or options for the historical simmer (including auto-scheduling and finances), the better, but the primary aim should remain 'getting the rules right.' This, in itself, will address the majority of these occurences almost immediately on the front end and reduce their frequency even further, e.g. players being traded within days of signing.

I'm reluctant to be the necromancer digging up the old bone and making it dance, but this is an area that Malleus had right: put the MLB model first and then build around it with options and processes. Everything else should fall into place around it, so that the core of the game is not its customizability, but an accurate reflection of baseball. As Wallace Stevens said, "Reality is the base. But it is the base."

Which is fine (and needed). But addresses nothing of the interface/ease-of-use mentioned by the OP. And marginalizes an entire segment of gamers.

Which is also fine. It's just a gamble that nothing short of the OOTP equivalent of dial testing will really shed light on. AFAIK, SI is not doing any such official testing. But I've no idea.

The OP and myself may well be in the vast minority. If that's the case, then I suspect sales of the current game are quite good, and that sales of future versions, devoid of errors involving roster management and finances and the like (based on the fact that those are the 'real problems'), should be astronomical. For Markus' and SI's sake, I hope this is the case. They seem like right and proper people.

As you can tell, I disagree. Because I can rationalize some of these things. But I can't rationalize not having fun. Well, I can, but not for long.

And perhaps Bruce is right. Perhaps after six or seven versions of the game, it has moved beyond me in regards to complexity and nuance. I empathize with his position. I'm a race sim fan, and wouldn't be happy sitting down to play a Need For Speed or even Gran Turismo title for very long if I'm looking for challenging strategy in how to become a better, er, driving simulator driver. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent that I've played in this genre that parallels a Gran Turismo (a second or third tier, but still fun title).

As a long-time baseball fan, and someone who has seen many iterations of this fair franchise grace my desktops, I'm still hopeful that the powers that be see enough of my type out there to (broken record) embrace a more inclusive approach to the game's progression to 2007 and beyond.

We'll see.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by endgame

I think your idea is a good one for those inclined to that style of play. It should be included. On the other hand, I'd be remiss if I didn't put in my in advocating that more trade proposals and offers take the long side of the 14 days instead of, predictably, getting an answer in a day or two.

Originally Posted by enuttage

Which is fine (and needed). But addresses nothing of the interface/ease-of-use mentioned by the OP. And marginalizes an entire segment of gamers.

My first post addresses both your comment and that of the OP: It's a good idea and should be included. In my last post, "I'm all for options" reiterates that sentiment.

As to the marginalization of any group of players, I'm a bit confused as to who that would include, other than the historical group I intimated could be optionalized by era at some later date or evolution.

One could make the case that options should, and in some sense are, the all in all of the game. Waiver, Free Agency, Coaches, Scouts, the list goes on and on are all initial "options" or checkboxes in the game as it presently exists. Maybe the due and proper course should be to start with a simple presentation of working MLB rules in all of these areas, and simply add the necessary numbers of options to bring it to a state of complexity that is a comfortable mix for the user. But the point remains, when exercising that given option is should work as expected or at least approximate the world that it portrays.

To what real end is a waiver option when any number of players are subjected to residing on it with abusive frequency, notwithstanding the quality of player that may appear on it? To what real end is a free agent signing by a competitor when there exists, to whatever likelihood, he may be released within a week as well as knowing you have approximately zero chance of acquiring him at that point because of the AI omniscience that he has become available? And to what plausible benefit to a pbp system in which all terminology is the now-preferred dry, static, and banal brand of baseball, but contains consistently controversial recording decisions and in some cases records the stat correctly, but because of the engine credits the wrong player (in word only) with its execution? Why provide elements, however complex or simplified that, at the root, fail to perform in the most meagerly and modest sense of accurate portrayal?

That's not to say the "real" trade process must be mirrored, only that the results and accompanying effects be realisitic. It doesn't matter to me if we include instantaneous play results, trades results, financial offers, etc. as long as they are indeed options AND the result is not one I have to fear recurring again and again in the game's processes and evaluations.

The only potential marginalization of any group has been inadvertantly one perpetrated on those who want to -- metaphor coming -- hang their choice of wardrobe, accessories, and/or weapons and armor on the same sound, stable, skeleton they have learned to depend on and serves as a vantage point for nearly all future gameplay evaluations: one that's parts move in a manner expected of them and one that everyone shares. Once that's acheived, it's not marginalizing anyone but actually building a right foundation for total inclusion.

The interface issue, if that's where it exists, is the most troubling for me in regard to your response. Especially since I am familiar with you, your posts, and your intentions. The game lost its "fellowship" with you, its kinsmanship and openness, maybe its intimacy. I sincerely wish I could see enough in both the game and in you to remedy that, but as you've rightly said: it's difficult, at best, to articulate. And honestly, I feel some of that as well but am as equally unable to precisely define it. I sense, however, it is related in some fashion to the game's inherent nature, in its present state, that throws all of the crayons out of the box asking each of us to find our own coloring book, and retain individual responsibility for any shortcomings in our resulting freehand compositions. Why wouldn't we feel alone in a crowd of chaos with few sharing exactly similar aims? Why wouldn't alienation be expected when taking the field only to find that the groundskeeper had failed to chalk the baselines?

I've digressed into my abhorrent pop philosophy, I apologize. But what I aim to say in some way is: we don't know what to do because there are no rules of confidence. We can't be sure how to feel, because what's right and proper can't even be agreed upon. Hence, I advocate at least one lighthouse in our horizon, the MLB. Make all of its elements optional, I don't care. But when I check the box, make it work. When I enter the ballpark, let me find a real game.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by endgame

--shortened for the mercy of those not us--



The interface issue, if that's where it exists, is the most troubling for me in regard to your response. Especially since I am familiar with you, your posts, and your intentions. The game lost its "fellowship" with you, its kinsmanship and openness, maybe its intimacy. I sincerely wish I could see enough in both the game and in you to remedy that, but as you've rightly said: it's difficult, at best, to articulate. And honestly, I feel some of that as well but am as equally unable to precisely define it. I sense, however, it is related in some fashion to the game's inherent nature, in its present state, that throws all of the crayons out of the box asking each of us to find our own coloring book, and retain individual responsibility for any shortcomings in our resulting freehand compositions. Why wouldn't we feel alone in a crowd of chaos with few sharing exactly similar aims? Why wouldn't alienation be expected when taking the field only to find that the groundskeeper had failed to chalk the baselines?

I've digressed into my abhorrent pop philosophy, I apologize. But what I aim to say in some way is: we don't know what to do because there are no rules of confidence. We can't be sure how to feel, because what's right and proper can't even be agreed upon. Hence, I advocate at least one lighthouse in our horizon, the MLB. Make all of its elements optional, I don't care. But when I check the box, make it work. When I enter the ballpark, let me find a real game.

Nice post, endgame. When you put things in that way, I definitely see where you're coming from.

With terrible, terrible, terrible cliche, to me you're saying bull before the horns, and at the very least then we know we've got the bull. Wait...is that the one? Ugh.

I've no idea if that'll solve my issues, but you seem to be burning off the fog better than me, so I'll trust you and run with it. I've no reason not to.

-E

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by BruceM

"too realistic". (still scratching head over that term)

I don't see what you are scratching your head about. Too realistic in this sense. I don't have time to hammer out long boring trade negotiations. If I'm going to make a trade, I want to go to the trade screen and try to make trades. The OOTP6 trade screen was fun and enjoyable - now I know it's unrealistic in some senses, but it was fun. And while you want the game to be realistic at all costs, some of us will trade realistic for something that I would actually want to spend some of my free time on.

I have a real life job where the negotiations take months, I get enough realism in my 40 hours a week there. I'd like to have some fun with a baseball sim, not spend my time becoming frustrated with it.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

I don't see what you are scratching your head about. Too realistic in this sense. I don't have time to hammer out long boring trade negotiations. If I'm going to make a trade, I want to go to the trade screen and try to make trades. The OOTP6 trade screen was fun and enjoyable - now I know it's unrealistic in some senses, but it was fun. And while you want the game to be realistic at all costs, some of us will trade realistic for something that I would actually want to spend some of my free time on.

I have a real life job where the negotiations take months, I get enough realism in my 40 hours a week there. I'd like to have some fun with a baseball sim, not spend my time becoming frustrated with it.

Well, as stated before, it might be possible that OOTP is not the game for you. OOTP is going to be the more realistic baseball sim for those of us who enjoy the realism of being a MLB GM. There are a whole host of baseball sims on the market, each doing things differently. You might be better off with one that doesn't require so much "work" as you put it. Personally I consider it fun, but to each thier own. Baseball Mogul is a sim that is a little less meaty, and PureSim is out there also. Please stop lobbying the developers to "dumb" down what will likely be a superior product, because you personally don't want to deal with real life GM duties, which to most of us, is what makes the game great. Just look at the FM series. It gets more complex with every version, and is the best selling game in the genre. I don't hear people over there complaining that it's too complicated!! They are having too much fun playing the game.

[sfgiants88]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Well, as stated before, it might be possible that OOTP is not the game for you. OOTP is going to be the more realistic baseball sim for those of us who enjoy the realism of being a MLB GM. There are a whole host of baseball sims on the market, each doing things differently. You might be better off with one that doesn't require so much "work" as you put it. Personally I consider it fun, but to each thier own. Baseball Mogul is a sim that is a little less meaty, and PureSim is out there also. Please stop lobbying the developers to "dumb" down what will likely be a superior product, because you personally don't want to deal with real life GM duties, which to most of us, is what makes the game great. Just look at the FM series. It gets more complex with every version, and is the best selling game in the genre. I don't hear people over there complaining that it's too complicated!! They are having too much fun playing the game.

I've tried so hard to not get involved in this thread. I'll just say that I think your view of "most of us" is warped. Some of you, not most of you.

Markus has already said that "fun" is the top priority of 2007, as is should be. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...26&postcount=6

[PSUColonel]

I do have one suggestion though to make things easier: each level of minors should(just like the majors) have a 25 man roster limit. This way you don't have 38 players on one level at a time. So if you have 6 minor league levels plus a MLB team, the maximum number of players you would be able to have in your organization would be 175.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by sfgiants88

Markus has already said that "fun" is the top priority of 2007, as is should be. http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...26&postcount=6

Well, since you have a full interpretation of what he means by fun, how about sharing it with the rest of us.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Well, as stated before, it might be possible that OOTP is not the game for you. OOTP is going to be the more realistic baseball sim for those of us who enjoy the realism of being a MLB GM. There are a whole host of baseball sims on the market, each doing things differently. You might be better off with one that doesn't require so much "work" as you put it. Personally I consider it fun, but to each thier own. Baseball Mogul is a sim that is a little less meaty, and PureSim is out there also. Please stop lobbying the developers to "dumb" down what will likely be a superior product, because you personally don't want to deal with real life GM duties, which to most of us, is what makes the game great. Just look at the FM series. It gets more complex with every version, and is the best selling game in the genre. I don't hear people over there complaining that it's too complicated!! They are having too much fun playing the game.

It isn't too complicated, I'm not saying that. It's not fun. There is a pretty big difference. You act like we are stupid and can't wrap our minds around the trade interface. It isn't even close to what anyone is saying.

I'm sure that SI hates my negative posts, but at least I'm not on the board supporting the game and telling people that this game isn't for them. That's pretty sweet marketing from one of the game's fans.

Certainly if the game continues in the horrible direction it has gone in then there won't be anyone left to complain. The small minority who are still supporting this game will have this board to themselves and you can all pat each other on the back for being so smart and being so much better then those other text sim players who want to actually enjoy the game that they are playing.