Any Word About OOTP14 Features?

[Orioles1966]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

You mean in the schedule editor? ... Right now it is only possible to select a neutral ballpark when playing games out.

Yep-the schedule editor. It would be nice when drawing up a schedule for an upcoming season to schedule neutral site games ahead of time which seems too be the case for FHM.

[BusterKing]

Markus,

Been buying OOTP since the first version. Love the game, wish you had a lifetime membership option.

I am just wondering if it would be possible to let us program the AI teams to have so many relief pitchers on their teams?

Presently with the actual real 2012 rosters we always see the AI teams with 11 pitchers in the AL and 12 in the NL. Please give us the option to make it 12 in the AL also. Many AL teams actually use 12, not 11. I always find this part very frustrating since I carry 12 with my Blue Jays and feel like I am taking advantage of the other AL teams which are stuck at 11.


Other then that your OOTP creation is reaching near perfection. Congrats, every new version you never cease to amaze everyone!

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

Markus,

Been buying OOTP since the first version. Love the game, wish you had a lifetime membership option.

I am just wondering if it would be possible to let us program the AI teams to have so many relief pitchers on their teams?

Presently with the actual real 2012 rosters we always see the AI teams with 11 pitchers in the AL and 12 in the NL. Please give us the option to make it 12 in the AL also. Many AL teams actually use 12, not 11. I always find this part very frustrating since I carry 12 with my Blue Jays and feel like I am taking advantage of the other AL teams which are stuck at 11.


Other then that your OOTP creation is reaching near perfection. Congrats, every new version you never cease to amaze everyone!

Oh man! Sometimes the Thanks button just isn't enough. Sometimes I wish we could give a forum member an internet hug. Busterking has just echoed my #1 wish for OOTP14.

Here is another example of why it would be great if OOTP allowed us to choose the size of bullpens league wide. When one sets "pitching stamina" to normal, "use of closers" to rarely and "use of relievers" to normal this is what occurs using OOTP: In a league using the DH, 5 starters, 5 relief pitchers. League not using the DH, 5 starters, 4 relief pitchers. OOTP simply will not allow me to have 5 relief pitchers if I'm using the DH. UGH! 4 means AI teams will be trotting out exhausted pitchers game after game after game.

If I up "use of relievers" to often, bullpen size grows to 6. I can live with this, but only if I change stamina to low. Otherwise I have 2-3 guys in the bullpen that are simply dead weight. Of course, changing stamina to low results in complete games being a rare occurrence and thus my frustration kicks up a notch.

[The Wolf]

An additional button under Roster Size for Number of Pitchers should do the job.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by BusterKing

I am just wondering if it would be possible to let us program the AI teams to have so many relief pitchers on their teams?

Presently with the actual real 2012 rosters we always see the AI teams with 11 pitchers in the AL and 12 in the NL. Please give us the option to make it 12 in the AL also. Many AL teams actually use 12, not 11. I always find this part very frustrating since I carry 12 with my Blue Jays and feel like I am taking advantage of the other AL teams which are stuck at 11.

That is indeed a new option in OOTP 14

[David Watts]

And please give us some form on on screen graphic that displays stadium attributes. Is it a hitters park, a pitchers park, a triples park, a launching pad etc. What are the dimension? How high are the fences. Do something to bring out the uniqueness of individual stadiums. This to me is especially needed for fictional play.

For me this could just be the box we see if we go to the team's page.

[PSUColonel]

Markus, could you also make it so that the manager controls "in game" remain on the AI? As it stands that is the case for regular summing, but not so if you are using real-time. That way the user doesn't have to change it each time when going in out of games to "view" the game.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Ah, I see. No, this would overcomplicate matters for the AI I fear, it could really screw things up. So I doubt I'll add it in OOTP 14.

Could we at least have service limits for College leagues? So players would have a certain number of seasons of eligibility regardless of age.

Would I be right in saying that one of the main issues with having service limits in the minors would be to the effect that you would end up with loads of free agents who the AI might sign as minor league filler, but weren't eligible?

On the issue of the number of pitchers, could you also look into the number of pitchers teams have when the rosters are sizes other than 25? It seems currently that teams will never carry more than 12 pitchers, regardless of roster size. Obviously we have no real life precedent (that I know of, Ping: LGO) for a league having a season round 30 man roster limit, but I find it hard to believe that teams would carry 18 hitters and 12 pitchers. I think it would be 15/15 or 16/14.

This seems to work okay with roster expansions, so it should work with normal roster sizes too.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Regarding animated 2D/3D graphics:

This will definitely be in OOTP some day. Why? Because I want it to be! It's been a dream of mine since I started coding the game. However, there are a couple of issues with it:

1) I wouldn't want to do it half-assed. I would want the player positioning and movement to be right (I am not talking the looks here, but rather where players move depending on situation/ball location etc.), and this is something not even action games like The Show get right all the time, despite them having multi-million Dollar budgets and ten times more people than we do.
2) Since we could never compete with PS3 graphics, we'd have to find a representation that would still look good without looking cheap / outdated. And that is a pretty tough task.
3) The 2D/3D engine would have to be very fast, because it would have to be used to simulate games as well, otherwise we'd have two different engines inside the game, which is something I would hate.

This all means that it is a LOT of work. And since we cannot afford to hire more people (unless you tell all your friends to buy OOTP 14), it's something that will not happen in the near future. But it will, someday.

Well shoot..

I don't need fancy graphics.. I just want FM style 2d players running around on the field.

Thanks for being honest though.. I'm just not too sure what can be added that would make me really excited this year... although you always seem to do it, somehow.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

3) The 2D/3D engine would have to be very fast, because it would have to be used to simulate games as well, otherwise we'd have two different engines inside the game, which is something I would hate.

What? This doesn't make any sense at all! It seems that this mindset is also the root problem of the play-by-play order issue.

The results engine should not be tied directly to the presentation. The results engine should be able to simulate a play, pass detailed results on to the presentation engine, and then have the presentation engine determine how the user sees the results. To couple these together is shortsighted and prevents fixing problems with one without potentially breaking the other. Decoupling them seems like good code design. It lets you optimize the results engine for performance independently of optimizing the presentation engine. It lets you change up the presentation engine without having to touch the results engine. We should have one results engine and multiple presentation engines. It lets you have separate presentation engines depending on how the user is playing, be it the RTS mode, in-game mode, or just simming large stretches. It would make it easier to allow users to customize their presentation engine, too.

I hardly ever play out my games, but I can see how this is important to people who do, and I can also see how decoupling the results from the presentation would improve my game performance when I'm just simming and not watching the results come in.

[D-BacksJosh]

It is hard to think of things that need to be added to this game. I play out every game so I think PBP is essential. It would be nice to have improved graphics in PBP, however I do not think it NEEDS to be 3D, the 2D graphics in FM as mentioned above would be sufficient in my opinion. OOTP should never lose its focus as a baseball management sim for the sake of graphics. This is one of the greatest games in existence!

[raginhood]

This all means that it is a LOT of work. And since we cannot afford to hire more people (unless you tell all your friends to buy OOTP 14), it's something that will not happen in the near future. But it will, someday.

Good luck with that.

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by fhomess

The results engine should not be tied directly to the presentation. The results engine should be able to simulate a play, pass detailed results on to the presentation engine, and then have the presentation engine determine how the user sees the results.

Well, I disagree. The results engine and the physics engine should go hand-in-hand. I would want the results engine to calculate the basic play result, but the physics/visualization engine modify the result if necessary (i.e. wind influences ball flight which turns a flyout into a double... or special stadium characteristics like the Green Monster in Fenway Park altering play results), which is something the basic results engine cannot do. Like I said, if I'd do it, I would want to do it properly, and having stadium characteristics really matter would be a very important part of it. Especially when you have something fancy like a 2D/3D stadium editor.

[Molson]

on the subject of defining the number of bullpen pitchers...

any chance we can get further options on individuals, like use as a LOOGY only, and never use my closer unless it is a save situation (some ML managers manage this way, as laughable as it may be).

Also, can we bring back the pinch hitting list (we used to be able to "rank" who we wanted to pinch hit first against LHP or RHP).

[Markus Heinsohn]

Originally Posted by Molson

on the subject of defining the number of bullpen pitchers...

any chance we can get further options on individuals, like use as a LOOGY only, and never use my closer unless it is a save situation (some ML managers manage this way, as laughable as it may be).

Also, can we bring back the pinch hitting list (we used to be able to "rank" who we wanted to pinch hit first against LHP or RHP).

We're currently discussing all of these suggestions with the beta team, but no decision has been made yet.

[The Wolf]

Markus, we really do need a PH list. Pretty please?

[Mr. Marlin]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I disagree. The results engine and the physics engine should go hand-in-hand. I would want the results engine to calculate the basic play result, but the physics/visualization engine modify the result if necessary (i.e. wind influences ball flight which turns a flyout into a double... or special stadium characteristics like the Green Monster in Fenway Park altering play results), which is something the basic results engine cannot do. Like I said, if I'd do it, I would want to do it properly, and having stadium characteristics really matter would be a very important part of it. Especially when you have something fancy like a 2D/3D stadium editor.

Did you just drop a hint here?????

[PSUColonel]

One quick suggestion: The ability to lock players into the depth chart...this is different from "force start" due to R/L match ups.

[fhomess]

Originally Posted by Markus Heinsohn

Well, I disagree. The results engine and the physics engine should go hand-in-hand. I would want the results engine to calculate the basic play result, but the physics/visualization engine modify the result if necessary (i.e. wind influences ball flight which turns a flyout into a double... or special stadium characteristics like the Green Monster in Fenway Park altering play results), which is something the basic results engine cannot do. Like I said, if I'd do it, I would want to do it properly, and having stadium characteristics really matter would be a very important part of it. Especially when you have something fancy like a 2D/3D stadium editor.

I will continue to vehemently disagree that presentation is the same as results/physics. By all means, the physics should help determine the results, but what the end user sees is just display. It's possible to determine the results of a play based on all of the ratings, league settings, and physics, and THEN determine how the end user will see it on screen. Unless you're suggesting that the play-by-play helps determine the results, then there's no reason that adding graphics should determine the results. They're both the same result, calculated the same way, presented to the user in two different ways.

[Tyler87898]

Look, I would love graphics and will be very excited for if and whenever they become a part of OOTP. I don't get why we are/were arguing about if graphics should be added or not. Just make an option for using the graphics or not. It really shouldn't be that difficult, and it helps both "sides" of people.