Challenges

[bazeall]

Will OOTP15 include challenges and overturned or upheld calls?

[Honorable_Pawn]

[David Watts]

Probably just me, but if this type of thing is added to OOTP, I hope it's not until OOTP16. That way there is something to model its implementation after.

[RchW]

Unless the implementation specifically includes bad calls that are not reviewable or other things like a fake HBP or other un-reviewable bad calls I don't see this as a good idea.

You can't have one way modules in the game. Just like coaching it can't only show improvement. The door swings both ways.

[The Game]

I hope it is optional. While I love the RL rule not sure how it will play n OOTP.

[Bluenoser]

Maybe I'm missing something, but until OOTP allows you to see the actual play on the field, what would be the point of challenges?

As it is now, your challenge would be based off text play by play.

If you want to challenge a close play for an out, you need to be able to see what you're challenging. The play by play might say "that was awful darn close, could have been safe". Well, irl you can bet that much like football, there will be a team guy watching replays and relaying to the manager whether he should challenge or not.

We can't watch any of that in OOTP in its current state.

[r0nster]

I agree with Game.... this should be optional if at all.

[Ike348]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Maybe I'm missing something, but until OOTP allows you to see the actual play on the field, what would be the point of challenges?

As it is now, your challenge would be based off text play by play.

If you want to challenge a close play for an out, you need to be able to see what you're challenging. The play by play might say "that was awful darn close, could have been safe". Well, irl you can bet that much like football, there will be a team guy watching replays and relaying to the manager whether he should challenge or not.

We can't watch any of that in OOTP in its current state.

Good point, but the PBP usually says "Close play for the second out!", or something to that effect. You could also challenge when your player starts arguing, or if, on a steal or something, your guy has a 100 steal and the catcher has an arm of 5, the pitcher threw a knuckle curve and your guy was called out.

You could make it work.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Ike348

Good point, but the PBP usually says "Close play for the second out!", or something to that effect. You could also challenge when your player starts arguing, or if, on a steal or something, your guy has a 100 steal and the catcher has an arm of 5, the pitcher threw a knuckle curve and your guy was called out.

You could make it work.

While this is true, this gets into the murky area of whether the game is going to get calls "wrong" on purpose, so that the player can challenge, or overturn "correct" calls based on a dice roll. Both are bad ideas, and I honestly see no other options for how this could play out in a text sim.

[Ike348]

I actually like your second point. There are methods of deciding close plays in the game, and you know they are close when the announcer makes some sort of remark or the player gets fired up about it. If I were listening to the radio, I could make a decision based on the announcer's remarks (ex. "Rollins is fired up, and he has a point!", or "He's out, and I'm not sure about that one") Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of those lines are in the game. This could even lead to something similar to coaches, where you could "hire" announcers, which could be former players or Joe Bucks. Different announcers would be more/less likely to give accurate descriptions of plays (ex. higher loyalty = more bias and more likely to overexaggerate, or higher intelligence = knows what he's talking about)

Now, for the challenges, it could be done similar to the in-game screens, "Do you want to try and score so-and-so? The ball is very shallow and the fielder has a very good arm." Instead, it would be, "Do you want to challenge the ruling of the foul home run? You have one challenge remaining." If "yes", the game would "roll the dice" as you say, and determine if the play should be overturned.

Now, this could lead to umpires as "personell". You get a random crew for the series, or maybe one randomly assigned to your team that would ump your home games, for simplicity. Ratings would determine how good the umps would be at making certain calls. So, the game could say, "Do you want to challenge the ruling of ____? The first base ump is very good at calling force plays". All of this would influence your decision, and OOTP's "dice roll".

This isn't for at least a couple of years, it's just "thoughts onto paper".

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Ike348

Now, for the challenges, it could be done similar to the in-game screens, "Do you want to try and score so-and-so? The ball is very shallow and the fielder has a very good arm." Instead, it would be, "Do you want to challenge the ruling of the foul home run? You have one challenge remaining." If "yes", the game would "roll the dice" as you say, and determine if the play should be overturned.

That... that isn't a half-bad idea.

I still wouldn't use the challenge system, since I'm not even a fan of it in real life, but if it was implemented, that's how I'd want to see it.

[bazeall]

I don't like the challenge system. If the goal is to get calls right, then get the calls right.

[tejdog1]

Originally Posted by Ike348

I actually like your second point. There are methods of deciding close plays in the game, and you know they are close when the announcer makes some sort of remark or the player gets fired up about it. If I were listening to the radio, I could make a decision based on the announcer's remarks (ex. "Rollins is fired up, and he has a point!", or "He's out, and I'm not sure about that one") Correct me if I'm wrong, but both of those lines are in the game. This could even lead to something similar to coaches, where you could "hire" announcers, which could be former players or Joe Bucks. Different announcers would be more/less likely to give accurate descriptions of plays (ex. higher loyalty = more bias and more likely to overexaggerate, or higher intelligence = knows what he's talking about)

Now, for the challenges, it could be done similar to the in-game screens, "Do you want to try and score so-and-so? The ball is very shallow and the fielder has a very good arm." Instead, it would be, "Do you want to challenge the ruling of the foul home run? You have one challenge remaining." If "yes", the game would "roll the dice" as you say, and determine if the play should be overturned.

Now, this could lead to umpires as "personell". You get a random crew for the series, or maybe one randomly assigned to your team that would ump your home games, for simplicity. Ratings would determine how good the umps would be at making certain calls. So, the game could say, "Do you want to challenge the ruling of ____? The first base ump is very good at calling force plays". All of this would influence your decision, and OOTP's "dice roll".

This isn't for at least a couple of years, it's just "thoughts onto paper".

Only if Joe Buck, Tim McCarver, Joe Morgan, etc... are rated 0.

[rpriske]

I don't think (but could be wrong) that when the pbp says it is a 'close play' that anything special has actually happened. I think it is just the random play calling that came up for that play.