More OOTP10 suggestions

[Mt Fire Fighter]

I havent played OOTP for very long but I would like to see some minor improvements to the broadcast screen:

1) Be able to see relievers condition, are they ready or not
2) Be able to place 'ball locations ' on a bigger screen instead of the smaller one.
3) Better spacing on the batter and pitchers stats on the broadcast screen, some overlap a little.
4) Be able to see how the defense is set after the pitch while the PBP is running.
5) Pitchers defense rating instead of "IP K BB" on screen, maybe their ability to hold runner too?
6) Better sound, maybe National Anthem & sevetn inning strech?

The rest of the suggestion that have been potsed I fully agree with and also to fix some of the older problmes first.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Don't add squat, unless it's stuff removed since 6.5. Just fix the broken stuff that has been broken all along.

I'm all for fixing things that should have been fixed ages ago, but if that's all you do, you're not going to sell many copies.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I'm all for fixing things that should have been fixed ages ago, but if that's all you do, you're not going to sell many copies.

Exactly. Making sure that every last, teenie-weenie feature that was once in 6.5 gets back into 10 sure won't have me putting down any $$.

[jarmenia]

Make the watch game feature actually feel like you're watching the game. Have both teams linups displayed. Have the stats displayed as they were at the start of the game. Have the stats accumulate during the game. Show the players ratings as they were for the game.

As it is now the watch game feature, while a neat idea, just doesn't work.

[Cryomaniac]

With regard to what LGO has been saying regarding league associations, here is a very quick mock-up I did of how I would do the menu for such a thing (imagine all the columns except the right-most are drop downs):

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Wasn't the order of who decides which hand to use finally ruled as the pitcher must decide first? If I recall correctly the rationalization was that it would follow the rule that the team at bat has the chance to pinch hit after a relief pitcher is called in, even if the current announced hitter hasn't come to the plate, while the team in the field has no chance to bring in a reliever following a pinch hitter being announced unless the current pitcher has already faced one batter. As far as I know the rules committee never overruled that on-field decision by the umpires.

Yeah, that was the way the rule was decided. I'd like there to be an option though, since my personal opinion is that it should be the other way round.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by thbroman

Exactly. Making sure that every last, teenie-weenie feature that was once in 6.5 gets back into 10 sure won't have me putting down any $$.

Adding any of the stuff I see suggested on here won't have me putting my $ down either. Kinda offset each other.

Furthermore, I said absolutely nothing about "every last, teenie-weenie feature" so quit misstating what I said. I get tired of people saying things that come out of their inability to comprehend what they read and making it look as if someone else wrote that.

Just because there are things in 6.5 that you didn't use because of the way you play, probably a simmer which doesn't = "playing" the game at all if you ask me, doesn't mean some of those features weren't important to someone else.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

I'm all for fixing things that should have been fixed ages ago, but if that's all you do, you're not going to sell many copies.

You won't sell to many people who are tired of the same problems lingering from one version to another either.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

You won't sell to many people who are tired of the same problems lingering from one version to another either.

In that case, what exactly is it you want that was in 6.5? Post a list.

[StyxNCa]

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

In that case, what exactly is it you want that was in 6.5? Post a list.

Apparently you haven't read the many posts from other threads in the past mentioning many of the features people would like to see returned.Do a search if you really need to know the complete list.

The #1 thing I want to see returned is the ability to type in stats in the editor to get the ratings, not the other way around. Since I do a huge amount of editing of real players this is a big deal to me. The way it is now makes no sense and is way too tedious.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Adding any of the stuff I see suggested on here won't have me putting my $ down either. Kinda offset each other.

Furthermore, I said absolutely nothing about "every last, teenie-weenie feature" so quit misstating what I said. I get tired of people saying things that come out of their inability to comprehend what they read and making it look as if someone else wrote that.

Just because there are things in 6.5 that you didn't use because of the way you play, probably a simmer which doesn't = "playing" the game at all if you ask me, doesn't mean some of those features weren't important to someone else.

Hmm . . . is this an invitation to get into another tiresome shouting match?
You've picked the wrong target, I'm afraid. I won't play that game.

[treedom]

More keyboard shortcuts.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by StyxNCa

Don't add squat, unless it's stuff removed since 6.5. Just fix the broken stuff that has been broken all along.

I would argue the way the game handles the interaction between leagues is "broken" and very much needs rethinking. Subleagues as the required way of setting up something like MLB should have been dispensed with long ago.

Originally Posted by Cryomaniac

With regard to what LGO has been saying regarding league associations, here is a very quick mock-up I did of how I would do the menu for such a thing (imagine all the columns except the right-most are drop downs)...

That's a start.

The two key things needed in any interface for this are, first, a way to establish the exact manner in which a given association (or league) will relate to another, and second, a way to rank the relative status of leagues within an association. This is so that one can set up the varying levels of the minor leagues.

In terms of how associations can interact with each other, I haven't figured it all out, but would at least include the following (all of which are based on acutal baseball history):

1) Outlaw. This means the associations have no rules regarding their interaction. Each association thus does not respect either the contracts or territories of the other. The result is an association can raid another for players and try to lure them away, or put clubs into cities already occupied by another association. Think of the Federal League versus the AL and NL and you get the idea.

2) None. This means the associations have agreed to respect each other's contracts and territories, but otherwise have decided to have no interaction. Players cannot be traded or sold between the associations, for example.

3) Limited. This means there is some interaction but it is limited. Players can be moved between the associations using a method similar to the posting system used to transfer Japanese players to MLB.

4) Normal. This recreates the kind of situation which existed within MLB in earlier years. Players can be traded or sold between associations within various waiver limitations. A common amateur draft can be held, and interleague pre-season, regular season, and post-season play is possible.

In terms of major-minor relationships, that wouldn't rely on associations per se. Any club of higher status (i.e. classification) could establish a working agreement/player development contract with a club in a league or association of lower status, or choose to own outright such clubs. This is why being able to select the staus/classiciation of leagues within an association and between associations is important.


There's quite a bit which is open for discussion in all this, particularly in terms of specific options, but the goal is to construct a system in OOTP which allows for the mimicking of baseball reality (both past and present) in a user-friendly way.

[kckid4u]

Is that my klenex?

[thbroman]

LGO, is it the case that major league clubs have also owned minor-league clubs outright? I think so, but I would defer to your much greater knowledge of this. In any case, I would advocate for including this as one of your "association" options (i.e., a owner/GM can own more than one club, as long as they're vertically differentiated). To make this at all realistic, of course, you would have to put the costs of operating the minor-league club(s) on the major-league clubs' books.

[Syxx34]

I agree with most the people. There would have to be a improvement on all the little things to get me to buy the next one. One problem I had. Deleting leagues completely, so that they do not appear on the webpages for online leagues. That would make modifying leagues files that much easier. Also maybe a new page layout for the webpage and be able to change colors with ease as most people are lost on css stylesheets. As I dont have a problem with it. All in all....love the game. Wish football (american) had something half as good.

[Cryomaniac]

Originally Posted by Syxx34

Wish football (american) had something half as good.

So do I.

[markprior22]

I would like to see multiple short lists with editable titles. For instance, I would like to set one up for players I trade away so I can follow them and see how they panned out without having to search all over. I'm sure there would be many other uses also.

[Curtis]

Originally Posted by thbroman

LGO, is it the case that major league clubs have also owned minor-league clubs outright?

Before WWI the Cleveland Indians attempted to set up a minor league feeder system (like Branch Rickey later did, but on a smaller scale) and purchased five or six minor league clubs, including New Orleans. The history of the Indians I read never mentioned them divesting, but they must have because by the time Bob Feller appears they only have player agreements with minor league clubs — no ownership intersts.

This may not be strictly analogize to what you're talking about. The Indians had two principal owners in that period (brothers?), and one of them bought two teams, the other bought one or two, and together they bought another two, so it wasn't really 'The Indians' that owned the minor clubs.

I could well be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the Staten Island Yankees and the Brooklyn Cyclones of the New York/Penn League were both wholely owned subsidiaries of their parent clubs today.

The Staten Island team started life as the Watertown Indians, but were sold to a father/son ownership group who moved them and switched affiliation to the Yankees when attendance here dropped to near zero. After some years of serious mismanagement the Yankees bought out the father/son, built a new stadium on Staten Island and moved the team there.

My impression was that the Brooklyn Cyclones were created out of whole cloth by the Mets at the same time 'to return baseball to Brooklyn' and set up a rivalry with the Yankee farm club.

[thbroman]

Originally Posted by Curtis

Before WWI the Cleveland Indians attempted to set up a minor league feeder system (like Branch Rickey later did, but on a smaller scale) and purchased five or six minor league clubs, including New Orleans. The history of the Indians I read never mentioned them divesting, but they must have because by the time Bob Feller appears they only have player agreements with minor league clubs — no ownership intersts.

This may not be strictly analogize to what you're talking about. The Indians had two principal owners in that period (brothers?), and one of them bought two teams, the other bought one or two, and together they bought another two, so it wasn't really 'The Indians' that owned the minor clubs.

I could well be wrong about this, but it was my understanding that the Staten Island Yankees and the Brooklyn Cyclones of the New York/Penn League were both wholely owned subsidiaries of their parent clubs today.

The Staten Island team started life as the Watertown Indians, but were sold to a father/son ownership group who moved them and switched affiliation to the Yankees when attendance here dropped to near zero. After some years of serious mismanagement the Yankees bought out the father/son, built a new stadium on Staten Island and moved the team there.

My impression was that the Brooklyn Cyclones were created out of whole cloth by the Mets at the same time 'to return baseball to Brooklyn' and set up a rivalry with the Yankee farm club.

Well, as you know, the separation of identities between "owner" and "the club" (or the human player as GM) is already in the current game. It offers interesting possibilities for the owner facing a financial squeeze and having to drop one or more of "his" minor-league clubs, if we were to get something like what LGO has suggested above.

As to the larger point, I don't know for a fact that all or most ML ballclubs "own" their minor-league teams today. Maybe they just have a bunch of contractual agreements where the minor-league club agrees to do certain things for the ML club in return for an operating subsidy. But clearly, with the ML clubs' ability to move players from one team to another, it's got to be almost the same as the ML club owning the minor-league one.