Back from vacation, 1.0.3 coming up

[rwd59]

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.

Actually there are quite a few who post ideas over there, and yes many come from OOTP. I think of it like this: The OOTP series has been like a Lexus and the Puresim series has been like a Toyota, not as flashy but very reliable. This year Puresim moved closer to the Lexus line but it still hasn't made it yet. This years OOTP has had to make massive recalls that have angered many but not all owners, but it has proven itself to be top of the line in the past. Are you going to give up on the Lexus because of one bad year? No. You're gonna let them know you are ticked off and why, so they can fix the problem and fix it soon if it is possible to fix. Now if I buy another Lexus for my next purchase and it has problems again I'm not gonna buy another one, ever. Like the old adage says, fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. I'll take the less flashy but more reliable version from then on. And of course there is something to be said for that older reliable Lexus I already have paid off and sitting in the garage with a 6.5 litre engine.......Bottom line is I want to play OOTP as I have for years and I want to see it get better. I just do not enjoy this version.

[Charlie Hough]

It can't get much simpler than this:

Please allow the user to add bunt for hit and sacrifice bunting abilities to the customized view for batting ratings. Right now there is no way to add these categories, because they're not included in the customization menu. So I have to look at individual player profiles to see them.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by Charlie Hough

It can't get much simpler than this:

Please allow the user to add bunt for hit and sacrifice bunting abilities to the customized view for batting rights. Right now there is no way to add these categories, because they're not included in the customization menu. So I have to look at individual player profiles to see them.

I'll second that.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

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

You don't have to study it to death, you just have to think about it some. Often you can head off potential issues that way.

Originally Posted by The Wolf

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

Yes, but an expansion process which is completely fictionalized. And that game still doesn't let players directly control the alignment of their leagues. You're stuck with whatever alignment the game decides upon when expansion occurs.

Frankly, IMO, the inability to do something as basic as move teams between divisions when you want is a pretty fundamental feature to lack.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You don't have to study it to death, you just have to think about it some. Often you can head off potential issues that way.

Yes, but an expansion process which is completely fictionalized. And that game still doesn't let players directly control the alignment of their leagues. You're stuck with whatever alignment the game decides upon when expansion occurs.

Frankly, IMO, the inability to do something as basic as move teams between divisions when you want is a pretty fundamental feature to lack.

Exactly. Puresim has an expansion feature that was able to implemented quickly because the league setup options for that game are extremely limited. OOTP offers many more options when it comes to league creation and many of those options also will serve to make an expansion feature more complicated under the hood. I definitely think it should be near the top of the want list and I think it will likely be implemented within the next version or two. However, just because another game has it isn't the reason Markus should be putting it in and definitely shouldn't force him to rush it out or bump other features he feels are more important or fit certain time tables more efficiently. He'll get it in there when it makes sense for the development of the game.

[rwd59]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

You don't have to study it to death, you just have to think about it some. Often you can head off potential issues that way.

Yes, but an expansion process which is completely fictionalized. And that game still doesn't let players directly control the alignment of their leagues. You're stuck with whatever alignment the game decides upon when expansion occurs.

Frankly, IMO, the inability to do something as basic as move teams between divisions when you want is a pretty fundamental feature to lack.

Incorrect. If you are playing historically you can get it the exact same way it happened. I know. I have done it.

[disposableheros]

Originally Posted by andymac

You mean the half-assed ones? I was overreacting to your overreaction .

the first thing that comes to mind...

the compensation system isnt half-assed? it wasnt "fixed" on a whim? it was well thought out and planned accordingly to interact with other aspects of the game?

ive got some waterfront property in Louisiana id like to sell, interested?

for reference purposes...

7/18 8:55am - suggestion by an unnamed poster that compensation as originally coded isn't working like it should and a way to "fix" it (protect first 15 picks and add picks to the end of the round)
7/19 12:27am - Markus reveals he's done part of what has been suggested and "fixed" compensation (not all suggestions are added)

patched released - compensation "fixed", but now broken in a new way

dont get me wrong, Markus is a great man for what he has been able to build with OOTP (i think its the best baseball sim out there), but sometimes he acts before he thinks and it shows up in lots of places. take off the blinders and you'll see it too.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by rwd59

Incorrect. If you are playing historically you can get it the exact same way it happened. I know. I have done it.

But you are out of luck if you have a fictional league though (unless there's been some change since I last checked). And in any case you still can't shift teams around on your own if you want; that means pursuing any "what if" scenarios when playing out a historical league are not possible.

There's always a trade off somewhere...

[Charlie Hough]

Please have the game reduce graphics to the appropriate size using a smooth resizing technique when exporting them for uploading to a league website. League web pages look awful with graphics reduced by HTML tags instead of resized by the game before being saved and exported. Logos and player photos are very poor in quality with this method.

[sfgiants88]

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.

Because OOTP is still my best hope for the ultimate baseball simulation.

Rather than allow it to veer away from that path, I kick and scream and shout in the hopes that the path will be corrected.

You may disagree with me that the game is going on the wrong path. That's fine. But, if you personally thought the game was heading in wrong path, I have a difficult time believing all of your posts would be civil and level-headed all of the time.

I'm not speaking to you specifically, more of a general comment.

[The Wolf]

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.

Yet another Fanboy try at "If you don't like it here the way it is, why don't you just leave?"

Because we care about this game and its future enough to want to see it fixed.

Because OOTP took a terribly wrong turn with 2006 and I and others want it to get back on the right path and get the features in it that it needs to have be what it once was, the best and most full featured baseball career simulator. It's not any more as PureSim has leapfrogged ahead in important features while OOTP went backward in some areas. Shaun Sullivan understands that historical play is very important and listens to his users about it. He adds vital historical features like expansion when it was asked for and even invented the Holy Grail of historical career simming, Affinity Mode. He's doing all the right things, he gets it, he's on the right track. Judging by OOTP 2006's focus on world fantasy baseball and the cold shoulder historical gamers get on this board it seems that historical gamers don't matter much if at all around here. Shaun Sullivan clearly knows better.

Read what we've all been posting carefully. We want to be dedicated OOTP historical career baseball simmers and players. We want an OOTP that fully supports our kind of play and isn't just about world fantasy baseball. We don't want to play PureSim but as historical gamers we are and we will in the future if we have to. But we don't want to have to and we shouldn't have to have to.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by sfgiants88

Because OOTP is still my best hope for the ultimate baseball simulation.

Rather than allow it to veer away from that path, I kick and scream and shout in the hopes that the path will be corrected.

You may disagree with me that the game is going on the wrong path. That's fine. But, if you personally thought the game was heading in wrong path, I have a difficult time believing all of your posts would be civil and level-headed all of the time.

"

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by andymac

Puresim has an expansion feature that was able to implemented quickly because the league setup options for that game are extremely limited.

Why do you think you can keep getting away with nonsense about PureSim? First you try to label Affinity Mode as "replay," which it isn't, and now this.

My copy of PureSim 2007 has four completely different modes and twenty-five different pre-designed league setups. Yes, twenty-five, including everything from 1 league with 4 teams to 2 leagues with 40 teams. That's anything BUT "extremely limited."

Please stop slamming PureSim unless you know what you are talking about. Thank you.

[Sweed]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

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.

This is the dumbest post I have ever read on this or any text sim board. I'm not even going to waste my time explaining why.

[jope]

Four issues for the patch - not all easy though:

(1) make it possible to search for double players in the player search - would make it A LOT easier removing them;
(2) as mentioned above: export/import team structures with staff, stadium, financials et al. - not only within a league, but also inter-league;
(3) don't know if this is mentioned above, but: correction in the creation of pitchers - poor pitchers always come up with 1 movement - vs. left, right and potential.
(4) finally, often said and difficult to solve: scheduling, scheduling, scheduling... not only enhancing the existing one (i struggle a lot with my NCAA-tries, furthermore the schedule editor crashes with the 260+ teams), but also enable weekend-leagues (like all the european semi-pro-leagues that only play fri-sun).

I guess its a little bit too much to come up with contract issues ... but enabling monthly-based contracts would be a great deal regarding the realism of the game... (for indy leagues, winter leagues et al.)

anyway, thanks for considering

[Mr.Opinion]

I would like to be able to edit name frequency in names.dat once a league has already started. I have a world with 13000+ players, and 2500 of them have the first name "Joe". Likewise, of 2000 coaches/scouts, 450 of them are named "Joe".

[btheflash]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

He adds vital historical features like expansion when it was asked for and even invented the Holy Grail of historical career simming, Affinity Mode.

Well, affinity mode sounds like a terrible idea for ootp2006.

Maybe if you could articulate reasons why it should be in the game, instead of just saying--"Puresim has it"?

Player development is very random in ootp. I just had a historical replay where Ty Cobb got injured alot, and by 1916 he was a below-average outfielder. Why should the Tigers keep him around, just because of Affinity mode?

The AI in this game needs a lot of improvement, and it seems like affinity mode would just make it a lot worse.

An Expansion draft is a good idea. But, people have been asking for it since before the game was released. And it's still not in the game.

[andymac]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Why do you think you can keep getting away with nonsense about PureSim? First you try to label Affinity Mode as "replay," which it isn't, and now this.

My copy of OOTP 2007 has four completely different modes and twenty-five different pre-designed league setups. Yes, twenty-five, including everything from 1 league with 4 teams to 2 leagues with 40 teams. That's anything BUT "extremely limited."

Please stop slamming PureSim unless you know what you are talking about. Thank you.

That is extremely limited in comparison to OOTP. You are comparing everything here to PureSim, why wouldn't I be able to compare PureSim's features to OOTP? As for Affinity mode, it is definitely bordering on "replay". You are taking a simulation and basically editing the teams and players to act more as they did in real life in regards to specific situations (signing/keeping players). I would say that definitely takes the bar and moves it a notch or two closer to the replay side than the simulation side. Again, I'm not saying it is a bad feature...just not something that is likely in the direction OOTP is going because it is a simulation.

[Abu Taha]

A few (hopefully) simple adjustments to really make this game great:

1. Have 20-80 scale work in steps of five, as it works in real life.

2. People have been complaining about market size and fan loyalty creeping upwards; allow an option to FREEZE these things.

3. Salaries are nuts. I have my superstars salary set at 13 million; they regularly start by asking for 22 million plus. Suggest: 1. no AI team pays more than 20% of budget in salary to any one player. 2. hold back on the bidding wars; players have a certain value to a given team and teams shouldn't go too far beyond that in bidding.

4. Sometimes players are out of options with only a year on the secondary rosterl; fix this bug. Also, the team releases minor league free agents (who don't have major league salaries) even if they are on the secondary roster. This is wrong and should be corrected.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by btheflash

Well, affinity mode sounds like a terrible idea for ootp2006.

Maybe if you could articulate reasons why it should be in the game, instead of just saying--"Puresim has it"?

Because it's a great feature for historical simmers. Players and teams tend to behave like they did historically under Afiinity Mode and you can't see why this is a good thing? They don't do it robotically. If you actually knew what it was the odds are you'd really you'd like it.