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

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

telling people that this game isn't for them. That's pretty sweet marketing from one of the game's fans.

No one is "telling" you anything. They're merely suggesting that the game may have moved beyond what some people are looking for. That is "not" bad marketing, it's just a fact. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that not every game is everything to everyone. This game has some serious depth, thus it may not be for everyone.

[sfgiants88]

Originally Posted by BruceM

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

??

Never claimed that.

[BigCity]

I think the "overall" issue is simple - but the variations requested is what makes the game "complex".

First, I have to agree with the opinion that OOTP isn't for everyone. Over the past 6 years I've seen folks drop off using the game as it has gotten more complex. I, myself, use BOTH 6.5 and 2006 now depending on what kind of league I want to play.

OOTP, in it's present form, and where it is going per Markus' ultimate plan, is to create the "GM environment". Being a GM is significantly different that being a field manager. I believe Markus wants the game's priority to be the GM world, with the other scenarios being secondary in nature.
Second, Options are GOOD - but, they are the variables that (1) cause complexity, and (2) cause problems. Each option has to be coded to insure that EVERYTHING in the game that MIGHT be effected is handled correctly. Sometimes this is easy, other times you don't see the problem until it hits the street. Because of this, caution has to be the keyword when adding options.

Third. I agree 110% that the basic, underlying MODEL has to run correctly - and HAS TO BE NUMBER ONE on Markus' list to fix. If the game could be brought to the point that everything WORKED correctly, I think folks would be more acceptable of new options.

Lastly, we need to all understand that the game will NEVER be EXACTLY what we want. Each of us has a different view of what the game should be. Some of us hate what's happened to 2006 (and some have gone back to 6.5) and others LOVE what's happened. I can't agree more with the statement made that if Markus tries TOO hard to please everyone, he pleases no one. At some point, Markus has to decide how HE wants the game to work, and satisfy himself first.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by BigCity

First, I have to agree with the opinion that OOTP isn't for everyone.

The real question that stems from this statement, is whether more users are being gained by the new iterations, or if a disproportionate number of old users are being sloughed off.

You may know. Most of us don't.

As I mentioned earlier, there are no good 'second tier' alternatives to this game, IMO.

We'll see what happens...

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by enuttage

The real question that stems from this statement, is whether more users are being gained by the new iterations, or if a disproportionate number of old users are being sloughed off.

You may know. Most of us don't.

As I mentioned earlier, there are no good 'second tier' alternatives to this game, IMO.

We'll see what happens...

Not true, PureSim is a good alternative that is not quite as deep as OOTP. Just please understand that this game is going in the direction of being a GM sim, and in order for it to be challenging and fun, it must also be detailed. This is because a real GM has many different tasks when running the baseball operations of a club. (notice I said baseball operations, because I too think the game should focus on that sort of detail, as opposed to setting ticket and hot dog prices) I can't understand why so many of you are opposed to this, but like I said if you're not into it, there are other options.(contrary to your claim) Have you ever played FM in your life? If you have, you understand that it is likely the most addictive sports management sim ever made, and is also very detailed. Again the focus there is being a MANAGER, who runs the club. If OOTP can ever approach that kind of detail, it will be the best baseball management sim ever made, and will literally be the holy grail of baseball MANAGEMENT sims. If you'll notice also, FM has as very clear direction, and is not constantly be muddled by option after option. This is not to say I am totally against options of any kind, but like Big City and myself are saying, the more options, the more that can( and does) go wrong. A working model of the modern MLB is what is needed first and foremost. After that, if something can be accomodated, then fine.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Not true, PureSim is a good alternative that is not quite as deep as OOTP. Just please understand that this game is going in the direction of being a GM sim, and in order for it to be challenging and fun, it must also be detailed. This is because a real GM has many different tasks when running the baseball operations of a club. (notice I said baseball operations, because I too think the game should focus on that sort of detail, as opposed to setting ticket and hot dog prices) I can't understand why so many of you are opposed to this, but like I said if you're not into it, there are other options.(contrary to your claim) Have you ever played FM in your life? If you have, you understand that it is likely the most addictive sports management sim ever made, and is also very detailed. Again the focus there is being a MANAGER, who runs the club. If OOTP can ever approach that kind of detail, it will be the best baseball management sim ever made, and will literally be the holy grail of baseball MANAGEMENT sims. If you'll notice also, FM has as very clear direction, and is not constantly be muddled by option after option. This is not to say I am totally against options of any kind, but like Big City and myself are saying, the more options, the more that can( and does) go wrong. A working model of the modern MLB is what is needed first and foremost. After that, if something can be accomodated, then fine.

Two things:

1. I said IMO. I've played PureSim, and it absolutely does not do what even 6.5 could do in regards to how I play. Therefore, NOT a good alternative. I am not alone in this opinion.

2. My point was NOT to disagree with anyone or anything. My point was to say that if OOTP is losing more people that it's gaining, then the game (from a market perspective) has a problem, regardless of what anyone here says.

As a caveat to THAT, maybe Markus and SI don't care if it does one thing or another in regards to sales. And again, I've no idea how the current game is doing in regard to sales, or how sales of 2007 will be affected by reactions to both new customers hooked on 2006, or former customers that no longer enjoy the game. I don't think even SI knows this (how reaction to the current game will affect the next go around).

And I can't understand why you can't understand that many of us are not trying to undermine your opinion on this, or why it doesn't seem to come across as just that, an opinion.

We're here to share just like you are. Again, the dev team will do what they do. I'm just trying to have a hypothetical discussion.

Clearly we're both just wasting time. But hey, the internet is good for that sort of thing. Especially when we're just wasting time at work anyway.

[BigCity]

Let me add that no company intending to have a successful product is going to take the product's design down a path that loses customers. I suspect that 2006 outsold OOTP 6.5, or at least , came close. Otherwise, you would have already seen some directional change in the product.

Then again, it might be too early to tell.

There's nothing wrong with coming up with ideas as long as everyone understands "everything" simply isn't possible. In the end, the game will be what Markus/SI wants, and includes the ideas that could be implemented without issue, and those that would build the customer base.

If you, or me, or anyone else isn't in the group that the resulting product ends up being, then we'll be disappointed. There will be, however, a customer base that supports that ultimate product - and I'm sure Markus and SI hopes it is a bigger community that what 6.5 had.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by BigCity

If you, or me, or anyone else isn't in the group that the resulting product ends up being, then we'll be disappointed. There will be, however, a customer base that supports that ultimate product - and I'm sure Markus and SI hopes it is a bigger community that what 6.5 had.

And that's what I was getting at.

There is some self-righteousness at work in these forums, for sure though. One of us could end up in one of those groups. I'm just hoping most of us aren't.

[ey215]

Originally Posted by BigCity

Lastly, we need to all understand that the game will NEVER be EXACTLY what we want. Each of us has a different view of what the game should be. Some of us hate what's happened to 2006 (and some have gone back to 6.5) and others LOVE what's happened. I can't agree more with the statement made that if Markus tries TOO hard to please everyone, he pleases no one. At some point, Markus has to decide how HE wants the game to work, and satisfy himself first.

I think this entire thread was worth it to get to this statement. I couldn't agree more.

[Bluenoser]

*

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by BigCity

I can't agree more with the statement made that if Markus tries TOO hard to please everyone, he pleases no one. At some point, Markus has to decide how HE wants the game to work, and satisfy himself first.

Ah! At last, a musical solution to the problem: "You can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself." Thank you, Rickie Nelson. (And congrats to BigCity, who arrived at that conclusion three hours before I did.)

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Not true, PureSim is a good alternative that is not quite as deep as OOTP. Just please understand that this game is going in the direction of being a GM sim, and in order for it to be challenging and fun, it must also be detailed. This is because a real GM has many different tasks when running the baseball operations of a club. (notice I said baseball operations, because I too think the game should focus on that sort of detail, as opposed to setting ticket and hot dog prices) I can't understand why so many of you are opposed to this, but like I said if you're not into it, there are other options..

It's funny then that I am only interested in being a GM, and have zero interest in playing out the games yet hate everything about the new game. Mostly it's the AI is so horrifically bad that it's not even interesting to play, but it's got a lot to do with just some terrible design decisions.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

It's funny then that I am only interested in being a GM, and have zero interest in playing out the games yet hate everything about the new game. Mostly it's the AI is so horrifically bad that it's not even interesting to play, but it's got a lot to do with just some terrible design decisions.

This I agree with. My thing is this: I agree with the direction the game is going in, but I do think it is time to fix many of these long standing AI issues before adding more options or features. I would be very happy if the new game was only enhanced "under the hood" in the form of a working AI for roster management and financials.

[endgame]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This I agree with. My thing is this: I agree with the direction the game is going in, but I do think it is time to fix many of these long standing AI issues before adding more options of features. I would be very happy if the new game was only enhanced "under the hood" in the form of a working AI for roster management and financials.

If you add all transactions compliant and consistent (as is feasible) with a working MLB model of those transaction types and I agree completely.

Granted, a total rewrite negates the idea of the "legacy bug", however if the issues remain consistently in the same arenas over the development of a series -- as much respect as I have for Markus -- then they become easily construed as legacy design decisions or designer limitations.

[PSUColonel]

Originally Posted by endgame

If you add all transactions compliant and consistent (as is feasible) with a working MLB model of those transaction types and I agree completely.

Granted, a total rewrite negates the idea of the "legacy bug", however if the issues remain consistently in the same arenas over the development of a series -- as much respect as I have for Markus -- then they become easily construed as legacy design decisions or designer limitations.

I have long thought this, and when the new version came out and I again began seeing "repeat issues" I came to the conclusions that 1) either Markus doesn't want to fix these issues, ans IS IN fact using some old code from previous versions despite his claims that there wasn't one line of old code used, or 2) Markus simply doesn't know how to go about fixing the AI problems.

[zonk84]

One nice item to add that I don't think would be too controversial --

When I get a trade offer, I'd love to have a scout pop-up available -- i.e., single click and send a scout or scouts to scout all players in the deal, then get back to me with a report.

I don't mind the lag time so much -- I usually trade only at the deadline and in the winter meetings, but when I do get offers -- if I have 14 days to respond, I'd like to be able to send my scouts to update their reports on all players with a single click, rather than needing to individual scout/quick scout each player. I'm still not comfortable with the SI interface -- and quite often, I misclick -- making it a real hassle to scout players involved in a deal.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

What is it? That's what the community is here for. BTW...some of the players I've been talking about picking up on waivers...well guess what my scouts all seem to have varying opinions on most of them. Some saying he's going to be a superstar, while others say the player won't be worth crap. I just noticed this myself, so perhaps I am not being patient enough either.

I've been playing again, and I'm starting to identify some of the things that make me crazy.

They've probably been identified by others, and I'll eventually search and find out, but the bottom line is that it is absolutely interface-driven.

Just a couple of things I've found tonight.

1. When I click on a boxscore from the schedule page and then click on a player in the boxscore, and then hit the 'back' button, it takes me back to the schedule page instead of the boxscore.

2. When I want to find out how many blown saves my closer has or what his save percentage is, I have to click on his name, then click on his pitching stats, and THEN click on expanded pitching stats. Maddening. This is an extra step from the previous game and I'm not sure what benefit it yields.

Those are just two of the many that I 'felt' but had yet to identify up to this point. There are many more that make things very hard to navigate, and that have nothing to do with a 'dumbing down' or increase in complexity of the game.

They are bad UI design decisions. At least compared to the previous version.

And really, this is ALL that is making me not like this game. It is terribly cumbersome in UI. I'm sure there are fatal AI issues, but I can't even get through a full season before I find these because of the interface.

Now...it's entirely possible I'm missing out on some sort of shortcuts for this sort of thing. If so, I'd love to hear what they are.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

I remember one hump back in college that I'll never get over, but that was a long time ago.

That may be just as well. Remember, once you get over that hump, it's all downhill from there.

[enuttage]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

but it's got a lot to do with just some terrible design decisions.

lynchjm,

Can you expand/expound on those decisions?

Per endgame's newest thread, I've found a renewed interest in pushing this facet of re-design/re-implementation.

You seem to be suggesting that you've found the UI to have some flaws, and it's affecting the enjoyment of the game for you.

Can you be more specific (sometimes I can't be - but I agree, FWIW).

I want to share as much of the UI stuff with the devs as possible before we have a new game, in the hopes that navigation within the game will become more streamlined, efficient, and less awkward and 'clunky'.

-E

[Slapstick]

It seems to me that it may be difficult....but I would like to see a counteroffer that is made up of more than one player after I make an offer to another team. Alot of times I think the other team would take two of my second teir players instead of asking for "the one player that would make this offer acceptable". Is this something that can be worked in to the new version, or is it too difficult?