|
||||
|
02-27-2014, 06:11 PM | #81 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 929
|
|
02-27-2014, 08:03 PM | #82 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
Heck, no. It was like two years ago.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-27-2014, 08:05 PM | #83 | |||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Up There
Posts: 15,416
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps not. But there would still be some lingering issues. Quote:
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you shouldn't argue for something you think it worthwhile. I'm just trying to point out that there is often a lot more involved in a feature than might first meet the eye. |
|||
02-27-2014, 09:34 PM | #84 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
It would require a lot of work and only a small minority of users are interested in it.
I'd really like to see stats only get some love too, but we are in the exact same boat that the P/R guys are.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-27-2014, 11:30 PM | #85 | |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 243
Infractions: 0/3 (3)
|
Quote:
You keep saying this but at least from this thread it doesn't appear as if Marcus completely understands (not a bad thing) what exactly would make this work and the baby steps that we, the P/R advocates, would be happy with to make this type of league more functional that would absolutely not require a financial rewrite. If we can yearly get some small tweaks added to the game that make P/R leagues easier to set up with a potential financial rewrite in a few years I think we'd all be quite pleased much the same I'd be quite pleased with stats only focus on the same scale (small adjustments yearly) as it would provide me with NEW ways to play this game. |
|
02-27-2014, 11:40 PM | #86 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
Talk to him directly. See what he says.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-28-2014, 01:24 AM | #87 |
Minors (Triple A)
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 243
Infractions: 0/3 (3)
|
Have you read anything that anybody in this thread has said?
Did you read anything that I just wrote? Have you read the first page of this thread? It appears that all of this has been over your head thus far so I'm going to go WAY out on a limb and assume that even if you did read the thread -particularly page 1- you wouldn't be capable of comprehending that Marcus himself wasn't aware of the small changes that could greatly benefit P/R advocates in creating their leagues that would not have anything to do with a financial recode. I'm sure all of this is going to go over your head so if you need me to draw you pictures to better help understand this post I might be willing. |
02-28-2014, 01:41 AM | #88 |
OOTP Developments
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Nice, Côte d'Azur, France
Posts: 19,906
|
|
02-28-2014, 01:49 AM | #89 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
A stats-only mode where:
1. The AI never, ever looks at ratings when making a decision. 2. No ratings except current speed are ever visible, even in the editor. 3. HS/college performance are as good an indicator of future MILB/MLB performance as it is in real life. 4. Displays are adjusted so that even though ratings are no longer visible, it looks like nothing has been left off of any display. And a few more points.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-28-2014, 10:50 AM | #90 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
And, to repeat the point, MARKUS said it would take a complete financial rewrite, not me. And, since he wrote the code, I believe the man.
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-28-2014, 10:52 AM | #91 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: All alone
Posts: 12,612
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
|
And, since I was accused of not reading the first page, perhaps I'd better post a link to my much-thanked suggestion in it:
http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...ml#post3635905
__________________
__________________ Quote:
Five thousand thanks for a non-modder? I never thought I'd see the day. Thank you for your support. |
|
02-28-2014, 11:53 AM | #92 | |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 572
|
I fail to see how my second suggestion would be "a lot" of work.
Quote:
XYZ = current formula to calculate a team's reputation APTL = average payroll in the team's league OAP = overall average payroll of all "Major League" level teams in the game database SF = scaling factor, might be necessary but hard to tell New team reputation = (XYZ) * (APTL / OAP) * SF So let's say there are two teams in different Major Leagues in the game. They have the exact same record, same standings finish, same playoff results every year for the last 50 years. They are identical teams with respect to their own leagues. So theoretically their team reputations are identical. Let's say their current team reputations are 50 on a 1-100 scale. However, Team A plays in the top league in the world and the average payroll of the teams in that league is $100M. Team B plays in a low level league where the average payroll is only $25M. For simplicity we will assume that they are both 30-team leagues. So with a SF of 1, Team A now has a team rep of 80 while Team B now has a team rep of 20. If Team A had started with a team reputation of 20 (terrible team in the best league) while team B had a team reputation of 80 (great team in the worst league) now they both have a team reputation of 32 after the adjustment. So in terms of team reputations, those two teams would be on even footing with a scaling factor of one. Meaning that in this case the contract they're able to offer is once again a deciding factor. The coding work for this tweak seems fairly minimal. There would still have to be thought put into it, of course, because the scaling factor may be critical depending on the rest of the player contract decision code. But that code doesn't have to be necessarily be revised, you just play with the above scaling factor depending on how important team reputation is to players in the existing player contract decision algorithm and also the variance in team reputation created by the current formula (XYZ in my example). And the best part is that a standard single major league setup is completely unaffected by this change. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|