Back from vacation, 1.0.3 coming up

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andymac

Affinity mode strikes me as making the game more of a replay than a simulation.

Do you use it? I do and I disagree.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andymac

It is an option that PureSim has. Basically, it makes it more likely that a team will try to keep/sign a player that played for that team in real life for that season and that a player will more likely stay with/sign with a team that they played for in real life that season.

And that's the key. MORE LIKELY. Not certainly. Just more likely.

And it's an option.

[English_Ray]

Originally Posted by darkenigma510

Reserve Rosters:

1) Have the option to put a limit on them. For an independent league, this makes for better strategy rather than hoarding of players.

2) Have waivers and other rules apply to movements between Rserve and active rosters. This will again limit hoarding of players since there will be a price to excessive movements back and forth (i.e. you'll lose the player)

3) Put in an option for no reserve roster for independent leagues.

I think for me, this would be the nicest new (small!) feature to have added.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

And that's the key. MORE LIKELY. Not certainly. Just more likely.

And it's an option.

Right, but I don't like that. Having it as an option is fine, but I wouldn't use it. It just seems like a request for a replay type game, though, not a simulation.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Do you use it? I do and I disagree.

Well, I didn't buy PureSim...only checked out the demo. I don't remember whether I checked out that feature specifically or not.

[TheNutz72]

Originally Posted by Carplos

Huh? Move your mouse over the league dropdown button, select Transactions, then click the Draft Pool tab...

Unless one of us is misunderstanding the other, I don't see why you couldn't do that--I do it all the time.

What do you do, argue with everybody? OOTP2006 has back buttons and a history drop down menu, if you can't figure out that they were implemented for a purpose then you're not qualified to give your bad advice.

On top of that I am requesting a fix/change from Markus, please don't muddle that by saying that everything is fine.

If the SI team examines this, I hope they realize how systemic this is, especially in the minors.

[mgom27]

The ability to have the DH and Pitcher bat in the lineup at the same time.
The ability to have Interleague Play all year round and pick how many teams make the Playoffs in the MLB.
In Team Transactions say like on August 23 Javy Lopez was claimed by the Red Sox and the Red Sox gave something up in return.
Unretirements.
Black Monday.
The ability to disable the Trade Deadline so trading can happen all year round.
Multi Team Trades.
Interm Coaches/Personal.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Instead of trying to focus on why the points in http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...d.php?t=127061 can't be implemented, why aren't you, SI, and the rest of the beta testers looking at exactly how they CAN be implemented? And quickly?

That's where thinking through proposals comes in. There's no guarantee the way you'd like to see a feature's details implemented will be the same way I might like to see its details implemented.

Hence my comment that wherever possible as much detail as possible about how a feature might work should be included. If not when the idea is made, then at some point a discussion of what it should or should not include is a good idea.

Pretty simple, really.

[Carplos]

Originally Posted by TheNutz72

What do you do, argue with everybody? OOTP2006 has back buttons and a history drop down menu, if you can't figure out that they were implemented for a purpose then you're not qualified to give your bad advice.

I'm very argumentative... but what does that have to do with this? I was attempting to help with a quicker method of getting back to the draft pool screen. Even if a fix/change is coming, it wouldn't be here until the end of August.

There is no history dropdown menu, so I'm not sure what you're even talking about now.

On top of that I am requesting a fix/change from Markus, please don't muddle that by saying that everything is fine.

What the bloody heck are you talking about? Where did I even comment on whether or not the back buttons were "fine?" I just gave a workaround for quicker return to the draft pool screen for now.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andymac

Right, but I don't like that. Having it as an option is fine, but I wouldn't use it. It just seems like a request for a replay type game, though, not a simulation.

It makes your historical simulations tend to be more historical than they would be otherwise but it's not "replay." It's a great feature.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

That's where thinking through proposals comes in. There's no guarantee the way you'd like to see a feature's details implemented will be the same way I might like to see its details implemented.

That seems like more than a little overly compulsive to me. If the details of a feature aren't quite right and need to be patched later they can always be patched later. The important thing is just getting those features into the game. Putting them in would be a huge step forward, even if SI butchered them, which I doubt would happern. But then I didn't think they'd butcher OOTP 2006 either so maybe you have a point.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

If the details of a feature aren't quite right and need to be patched later they can always be patched later. The important thing is just getting those features into the game.

Uh, given how there were plenty of folks complaining about new features which aren't working properly (and didn't you do your share of pointing that out?), simply opting to shove in new features without proper thought and consideration would not seem to be the optimal way to go.

A lot of problems with features can be resolved beforehand by simply thinking them through in as much detail as possible.

[Assos]

That is the most importment thing is to fix what is broken now like the phatom pinch hitters , the re-addition of ghosts in the minors, et al. We start adding new things, that means we have to wait for a 4th patch and I think most would perfer a fix of the old stuff and wait for 2007.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Uh, given how there were plenty of folks complaining about new features which aren't working properly (and didn't you do your share of pointing that out?)

I am and have been far more concerned with what was left out. I also don't suffer from OBCD.

They say delay is the deadliest form of denial, and the best way to delay something is to study it to death.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Assos

That is the most importment thing is to fix what is broken now like the phatom pinch hitters , the re-addition of ghosts in the minors, et al. We start adding new things, that means we have to wait for a 4th patch and I think most would perfer a fix of the old stuff and wait for 2007.

The problem with that approach is that in the long run it will lead to features that the game needs to have in it now being added some time around 2010.

It was interesting that Shaun Sullivan could add expansion to PureSim in, what, just two weeks?

[Assos]

I will agree with you, we need the expansion add-on to the game. I also have toyed with PureSim back in the Beta days and I enjoyed it. But I feel that this game has always been more complete. Of course, I have been away from PureSim for awhile, but I hope we do see expansion added into the game soon.

[TETCHY]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

.... But then I didn't think they'd butcher OOTP 2006 either so maybe you have a point.

As a casual observer of the many and varied threads in this forum I must tell you it is "trollish" comments like this that cause people to view your posts with such contempt. You sneak them in wherever you can then cry foul when you get called on it.

What other purpose could you have for making that little remark if not to re-boil an argument that had otherwise been reduced to a simmer?



Now, justify away my friend......

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

The problem with that approach is that in the long run it will lead to features that the game needs to have in it now being added some time around 2010.

It was interesting that Shaun Sullivan could add expansion to PureSim in, what, just two weeks?

No, it means that features will be added to the program in a logical and sensible manner. I imagine that most features will be back by 2007 and certainly by 2008 all key features, plus lots of new ones will be there that 6.5 could never have.

Also, this wasn't the first iteration of PureSim for Shaun, was it?

[silvam14]

I've never played puresim, but it seems as though certain board members think that puresim has much more of the features they want than OOTP2006. If this is the case, why not just play puresim? If it is because OOTP2006 is a better overall game than puresim, do you guys pepper the puresim boards with all of the features that OOTP has that are better than puresim? I want to understand.

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by silvam14

I've never played puresim, but it seems as though certain board members think that puresim has much more of the features they want than OOTP2006. If this is the case, why not just play puresim? If it is because OOTP2006 is a better overall game than puresim, do you guys pepper the puresim boards with all of the features that OOTP has that are better than puresim? I want to understand.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a logical answer on this one, Silvam.