OOTP10 Suggestions: New Features / Grab Bag

[CaptainObvious]

Suggestion:
Add an option to add an RSS feed of the league news to the league HTML pages.

Reason:
It would be cool/convenient.

Priority:
very low

[PaganSkipper]

Suggestion:
Limit changes/improvements so the new releases come out before the MLB season starts.

Reason:
With the season underway and no known release date, right now I am kicking myself for pre-paying for OOTP 10.

Priority:
Highest

[juanito89]

Originally Posted by Curtis

SUGGESTION: The next time a suggestions forum is opened, don't include the line 'Priority'.

REASON: Markus should be deciding the priority, not us. Also, I'm repeatedly depressed by the number of truly inconsequential suggestions that posters self-rate as 'high'. Do they really believe that, or are they just trying to bump their ideas to the top of the list? If you rally need a priority ranking (and I don't believe you do), have the rankings voted on by the other posters. You know, like a poll?

PRIORITY: High, of course. (You see what I mean?)

An idea that I think would be good for the next suggestion forum is this:

Let's say I have a suggestion to make.

I make a post on the suggestions thread, posting the suggestion, and the reason for it. Not the priority.

Only then, after I submit the post, when people came to the thread and saw my suggestion, there would be a vote option below the text I wrote. People could then vote High, Medium, Low, and None (probably the original poster should be allowed one vote, too).

It would also show, of course, the average priority as it was that point in time, an average resulting from the votes (High - 3, Medium - 2, Low - 1, None - 0).

Preferably, this would be coded so that you didn't have to leave the page in order to vote. Ideally, you would be able to vote in every suggestion in a page, without ever leaving it (this is laziness on my part, perhaps).


This, although not the easiest thing to code on a forum, I imagine, would solve a couple of problems:

- When programmers came to the thread to check out what people wanted for the game, they wouldn't be looking at how important I think the implementation of my suggestion is; the would be getting some nice intel on how important the community feels the implementation is.

- To some extent, this would reduce the need that some (myself included) feel to make posts to second suggestions that they feel are awesome, then reducing the amount of stuff the programmers have to read.

P.S.: Oh crap-- I just realized that Curtis talked about priority polls in his post =X I decided to quote him and post this idea just as a soon as I read his "suggestion" line. Didn't get to the "reason" part, until looking at my post preview...well, anyway...I'll just send this anyway...although I feel that most of you will get the idea by reading what Curtis said.

[thamolas]

Suggestion:

It would be nice to have a "clutch" stat.


Reason:

Having something to represent that bit of "oomph" that certain players have in big games (in tight playoff races, pivotal playoff games, and do-or-die situations in games) would make the game more realistic and playing out the games more interesting. Some mediocre players are very clutch while some superstars are notorious chokers.

Priority:

Medium, but it would be really nice to see this in the game.

[johnnybourbon]

Originally Posted by thamolas

Suggestion:
It would be nice to have a "clutch" stat.

If I'm not mistaken, FpsBaseball had a close/late rating as well as a sept/oct month rating. are you suggesting something like this?

[thamolas]

Originally Posted by johnnybourbon

If I'm not mistaken, FpsBaseball had a close/late rating as well as a sept/oct month rating. are you suggesting something like this?

Ooooh two stats... that would be great! Seriously, though, clutch ability would add a nifty new dimension to the game.

[risp2out]

Originally Posted by bebop

+1

needed.

Seconded.

[risp2out]

Originally Posted by lt2cents

Suggestion

Seriously, and in as soon a release as possible, go in the direction suggested by . It opens a window on a direction that can carry the game to another level.

I am reiterating the point to suggest, at least as an option (for me the default option) that all intangible/intrinsic psychological/physiological player attributes be hidden.

To accommodate this it seems at least two additional game traits are needed- a scouting system where the scout gives opinions (his studied guess) about what the intangible qualities of the player might be, and- a users notebook, to accumulate observations about the player (which might include a freeform part and/or a fixed part for a set of attributes- but the entries (numeric or descriptive) are those of the game user).

Reason
Pineapple's suggestion opens a window on a much more immersive game experience. People and players don't come in life with their inherent abilities stapled to their forehead. (Imagine hiring/managing/deal making/etc. if that were true- always knowing what you were dealing with.) These are things that we learn to estimate about someone through observation.

What is left explicit are of course, player statistics, and other information scouts/coaches/etc could measure with a stopwatch or a yardstick or be otherwise counted.

So now coach observations on scales like pull-spray hitter, power-finesse pitcher, soft hands-iron glove, clubhouse leader-doghouse dweller are not numbers. And the coaches comments will not in any user detectable patterned way directly correlate to the hidden, internal numbers the game has to keep. 'Undetectable to the user' accounts for differences in scouting ability, the number of observations of a player the scout/coach/etc has, and randomness/fogginess.

OOTP has a base platform that can be carried forward. But even with the significant rewrites this concept requires of the game to become a future OOTP this is the preferred starting point. Can we satisfactorily get what OOTP has now plus enhancements in this type of direction anywhere else?
It doesn't seem like there should be concerns with computer capacity to handle a more complex program. Capacity continues to grow.

(There is a third part to the psychological/physiological dimensions still held for future developement. That is physical (in the sense of physics). A psychological/physiological/physical game (P/P/P) would, for example, model the result of a pitcher's curve/batter's contact at a deeper level than currently the current level of abstraction.)


Priority
High- (eventually, know it won't happen this year but much closer to ultimate game experience.)

I love this idea.

[opieandy]

Suggestion
Add the ability to go to the out-of-town scoreboard ('network') and jump to other games and watch those games in action from that point forward.

Reason
Would make the game a lot more fun. Would often want to do this in a blowout of your original game, or in a tight pennant race, etc. Would be fun just to be able to do at any time for any reason.

Priority
High

[dlevei01]

Suggestion

For the long time fictional players, a "bloodline" feature. Basically, multiple generations of players from the same family, like the Bonds or Griffeys, or relatives from the same generation, like the Robinsons or Ripkens (ok, so Billy was a pro on a technicality). A notation in the history or on the players web page about "being the son of so-and-so", or "so-and-so is his brother and also a major leaguer"

Reason

One of those things that make baseball, and all of sports, a bit more interesting, being able to link the past to the present and future.

Priority

Highest of the high? Kidding, obviously very low, easily more cosmetic than anything substantive

[Katdaddy]

Originally Posted by KGAGE

Suggestion
While playing out games, an ESPN type ticker should give you updates of other action occuring while you play out your game. Scoring updates, milestone updates. How cool would it be if you had a player somewhere in the league approaching the HR record and the ticker comes up with "Barry Bonds coming to bat in the 5th - Currently 5 HR's behind Hank Arron's HR Record" with a link for you to click on so you could temporarily leave your game and watch the action of the other game.

Reason
Immersion. The more the game seems to "know" about the world that has been created, the more realistic it will seem.

Priority
Low but would be very cool

I second this request. I would put it at "medium" on my scale...and would increase the immersion factor immensely and immediately.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by juanito89

An idea that I think would be good for the next suggestion forum is this:

Let's say I have a suggestion to make.

I make a post on the suggestions thread, posting the suggestion, and the reason for it. Not the priority.

Only then, after I submit the post, when people came to the thread and saw my suggestion, there would be a vote option below the text I wrote. People could then vote High, Medium, Low, and None (probably the original poster should be allowed one vote, too).

It would also show, of course, the average priority as it was that point in time, an average resulting from the votes (High - 3, Medium - 2, Low - 1, None - 0).

Preferably, this would be coded so that you didn't have to leave the page in order to vote. Ideally, you would be able to vote in every suggestion in a page, without ever leaving it (this is laziness on my part, perhaps).


This, although not the easiest thing to code on a forum, I imagine, would solve a couple of problems:

- When programmers came to the thread to check out what people wanted for the game, they wouldn't be looking at how important I think the implementation of my suggestion is; the would be getting some nice intel on how important the community feels the implementation is.

- To some extent, this would reduce the need that some (myself included) feel to make posts to second suggestions that they feel are awesome, then reducing the amount of stuff the programmers have to read.

P.S.: Oh crap-- I just realized that Curtis talked about priority polls in his post =X I decided to quote him and post this idea just as a soon as I read his "suggestion" line. Didn't get to the "reason" part, until looking at my post preview...well, anyway...I'll just send this anyway...although I feel that most of you will get the idea by reading what Curtis said.

Originally Posted by dlevei01

Suggestion

For the long time fictional players, a "bloodline" feature. Basically, multiple generations of players from the same family, like the Bonds or Griffeys, or relatives from the same generation, like the Robinsons or Ripkens (ok, so Billy was a pro on a technicality). A notation in the history or on the players web page about "being the son of so-and-so", or "so-and-so is his brother and also a major leaguer"

Reason

One of those things that make baseball, and all of sports, a bit more interesting, being able to link the past to the present and future.

Priority

Highest of the high? Kidding, obviously very low, easily more cosmetic than anything substantive

Both these are cool ideas.

[Spritze]

As things currently stand Leagues contain franchises covering a vast area and as one knows from real life this is not true. OOTP has the info to correct this already in its databases. It is just currently not being used to an optimal extent.

I use the OOTPx cities.txt file to create leagues with a more regional makeup. Perhaps something akin could be added to the game when it creates minor leagues. The process uses one formula that contains Lat amd Long and Population as contained in the cities.txt file.

For instance for a Rookie League

Population >10,000 and <50,000
Lat Centered on 47 so between >42 and <52
Long Centered on -107 so between >-112 and <-102

Gives one 50 towns in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, Alberta and British Columbia to choose from.

For AAA league Lat and Long I use a 40 degree spread and Pop between 200,000 and 2,000,000
for AA a 30 degree spread. Pop 80,000 to 225,000
for Single A leagues a 20 degree spread, Pop 40,000 to 100,000
and for Short A a 10 degree spread as in the rookie leagues and the same population spread as well

This gives leagues a proper regional flavor and is an improvement over the present system.

Note that only a single formula is necessary to produce better league makeups using the current cities.txt file.

[Le Grande Orange]

I was thinking of something similar, but instead of using the latitude/longitude values, the cities.txt file would have a couple of additional values added to help place cities into proper divisions, and construct more realistic minor leagues.

I envisioned it working by taking, for example, the United States and dividing into four regions (northeast, southeast, central, west). Each region is then subdivided into two subregions. Cities/towns are assigned to a region/subregion based on their location. Then, when constructing a league, these regions/subregions are then used in appropriate combinations to select the member cities/teams.

If, say, you were creating an 8-team major league divided into two divisions, then four cities would be chosen from the northeast/southeast regions, and four clubs from the central/west regions. If you were creating a 12-team league with three divisions, then it'd select four cities from the northeast/southeast, four from the central, and four from the west. And so on. Using this method, the divisions are geographically sensible as the league is created.

A similar method is used for the minor leagues. An AA league, for example, would have member cities drawn from only one region, and cities could be drawn from the two subregions within that region to create divisions.

(A further refinement would see the number of minor leagues at the various classification levels more closely mimicking the real-world minors. With a 30-team major league, for example, there'd be two AAA leagues, three AA leagues, three High A leagues, two Low A leagues, two Short Season A leagues, etc. A simple lookup table could define how many minor leagues of what sizes there'd be at each classification level for a given size of major league, with the proportions mirroring the real-world MLB-minors proportions. This would extend to the lower levels of minors not directly matching the majors in terms of teams on a one-to-one basis [e.g. there are only 22 Short Season A teams even though there are 30 MLB teams]. The result is fictional leagues having a much more realistic distribution of minor leagues and league sizes.)

The exact definition of what states constitute a given region or subregion are, of course, open to debate. I would suggest definitions which provide the best likelihood of leagues being created which mimic real-world leagues. In any event, the definitions could be changed by the user by entering a different region and subregion identifier for a given city in the cities.txt file. Wholly fictional worlds could be created by simply dividing a list of imaginary cities into regions/subregions as the user chooses.

One thing to keep in mind in regards to selecting cities for a minor league is that, generally, minor leagues these days have a much wider spread of city sizes making up the league than is the case in the majors.

[Spritze]

LGO:

The only negative to your plan is that it requires information that does not currently exist in OOTP. The other incredibly brilliant plan proposed by I don't remember who does not require nuthin but the application of a single formula. Plus as the spreads and Pops used in the formula can be semi-random league makeup is not proscribed in any way. But as a league always has a center the league makeup will always make sense.

This formula, depending on the amount of Lat/Long spread, can easily produce North, South, East, West, Northeast, Southwest, Wheatfield, Tri-State, Soybean, Oceanside and any other combo one chooses of Divisions and Leagues. It is not hampered by those pesky international borders so Vancouver B.C. can easily be in a league with Seattle, Calgary, Honolulu, Mexico City and Anchorage.

As this outrageously genius plan requires nothing but the application of a single formula and the judicious use of information already provided by the game I do not see how your much more complicated and labor intensive model can hold a candle to it candleholdingwise. Simple is simple. Simple is good. Simple can be programmed by the programmer guy in mere moments.

PLUS I suspect the programmer guy always intended to do this, hence the inclusion of Lat, Long and Pop in the cities.txt file in the first place.

AND I still think Jessica Alba should be invited to be a member of the beta test team next year, even if she does have a baby.

And as an extra Plus Here is the aformentioned Formula that was previously mentioned....I did name the columns in the cities.txt file for clarities sake.
SELECT Cities.Name, Cities.Population, Cities.Flag, Cities.Region, Cities.Lat, Cities.Long
FROM Cities.txt
WHERE (((Cities.Population)>=[PopulationMin] And (Cities.Population)<=[PopulationMax]) AND ((Cities.Lat)>=[LatMin] And (Cities.Lat)<=[LatMax]) AND ((Cities.Long)>=-[LongMin] And (Cities.Long)<=-[LongMax]));

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Spritze

The only negative to your plan is that it requires information that does not currently exist in OOTP.

Adding it to the cities.txt file would not seem especially difficult, and does have the benefit of being user customizable in what is perhaps more user-friendly values than would messing about with latitude/longitude.

Originally Posted by Spritze

This formula, depending on the amount of Lat/Long spread, can easily produce North, South, East, West, Northeast, Southwest, Wheatfield, Tri-State, Soybean, Oceanside and any other combo one chooses of Divisions and Leagues.

Perhaps so, but I would need to see an example of how you'd set the parameters for the formula in terms of, say, a continent-wide league with eight teams divided into two divisions. Region and subregion codes would seem easier to work with. Using latitude and longitude means working with what are essentially relative values, whereas region and subregion identifiers are absolute. I would think trying to set up formulas for relative data would be more tricky.

Disclaimer: I am not a programmer, so perhaps it's a breeze to do.

Originally Posted by Spritze

As this outrageously genius plan requires nothing but the application of a single formula and the judicious use of information already provided by the game I do not see how your much more complicated and labor intensive model can hold a candle to it candleholdingwise.

I don't see how it could be a single, simple formula once you start factoring in different geographical distributions of leagues (e.g. single state, regional, or continental) and divisional setup. But perhaps you've worked out detail to it you've not shared as yet.

Adding region and subregion identifiers is hardly a difficult task.


In any event, your proposal still does not address more realistic numbers and sizes of affiliated minor leagues. So at least I win on that point.

[Spritze]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Adding it to the cities.txt file would not seem especially difficult, and does have the benefit of being user customizable in what is perhaps more user-friendly values than would messing about with latitude/longitude.

I use a form that allows me to pick a league center, a radius in miles (1 degree of lat or long = 60 miles and I can pinpoint to 100ths of a degree or about a half mile) and a pop.

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Perhaps so, but I would need to see an example of how you'd set the parameters for the formula in terms of, say, a continent-wide league with eight teams divided into two divisions. Region and subregion codes would seem easier to work with. Using latitude and longitude means working with what are essentially relative values, whereas region and subregion identifiers are absolute. I would think trying to set up formulas for relative data would be more tricky.
Disclaimer: I am not a programmer, so perhaps it's a breeze to do.

Breezy is breezy, baby! I gave the formula in the previous post so you can see for yourself how breezy that is. Relative values are much more adaptable than strict rules as your strict rules most likely won't be my strict rules. Relative rules mean they don't have to be. Everyone gets their own!

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I don't see how it could be a single, simple formula once you start factoring in different geographical distributions of leagues (e.g. single state, regional, or continental) and divisional setup. But perhaps you've worked out detail to it you've not shared as yet.

Of course, the secret sauce consists of the form and I can further sort the chosen locations by region and country as both of those are already in cities.txt. Again I gave the formula so you can see for yourself how easy it works. Piece of cake!

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Adding region and subregion identifiers is hardly a difficult task.

Anything that is unneccessary is a waste of time. Time is what you spend on living the dream. So more of it is a good thing, less is a bad thing. I dream BIG!!!!

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

In any event, your proposal still does not address more realistic numbers and sizes of affiliated minor leagues. So at least I win on that point.

Hah! With the formula you can have any number and sizes of affiliated and unaffiliated minor leagues you want and you can place then anywhere in the world you want. I have a Ghana rookie ball league in my current historical setup. Bet you don't! Burkina Faso is next!

PS: I don't suppose you might have any historical Ghanian schedules floating around idle do you?

[Spritze]

By the way, I was actually just proposing the formula to get away from game created low-level leagues with teams in Cal, Ala, Montana, NDakota and NY. Stuff like that. As the level goes lower the leagues should become more regional. Currently that is not the case. The formula on its own can do that.

All the rest is cool but just fluff.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Spritze

I use a form that allows me to pick a league center, a radius in miles (1 degree of lat or long = 60 miles and I can pinpoint to 100ths of a degree or about a half mile) and a pop.

Only one small issue with that—it assumes leagues have a roughly circular distribution of cities. That's not really the case in most leagues.

Anyway, if you can get your method to work well, fine by me.

Originally Posted by Spritze

By the way, I was actually just proposing the formula to get away from game created low-level leagues with teams in Cal, Ala, Montana, NDakota and NY. Stuff like that. As the level goes lower the leagues should become more regional. Currently that is not the case.

No argument from me there.

I just wanted to point out that, by default, OOTP sets up minors for a fictional league which mirror exactly the size and setup of the major league. That's not really accurate. While the AAA* and Low-A levels have 30 teams in two leagues, the AA and High-A levels do not; they consist of three leagues each. And at the lower levels, the ratio of affiliated to parent clubs is not one-to-one, e.g. there are 22 clubs in Short Season A, 18 in Rookie Advanced, and 27 in Rookie.

So a system could be created by which the affiliated minors are set up in a more realistic way. This could be done using a file listing the number of leagues and their sizes for each classification for a given size of major league. Even the preferred length of schedule could be listed. The file could user-editable as well, which would be a nice bonus allowing for the utmost in flexibility.

Ultimately, such a file could even be made historical—that is, different minors setup values could be specified for each year. That way, someone setting up a fictional major league starting in 1950 would get a 1950-style minor league world while someone starting a league in 2009 would get 2009-style minors.

Getting the numbers to create such a minors setup file would not be that hard; I think I have most of them onhand already in one form or another.


*AAA used to contain three leagues prior to 1998.

[thehatfield]

Suggestion
Notation in the final standings if there was a one-game playoff for the division/league title.

Reason
Because when simming chunks of years at a time you have to research to find out if there was a one-game playoff or not.

Priority
High