Players and thier injuries should not be digital!

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

All of that is good except the "will be able to come off the DL early". No matter how quick or slow a player heals, you can't take him off the DL early. If a player is on for 15 days, he can't come off for 15 days, no matter what. Same for 60 day DL.

This is true - as long as the 15 or 60 days aren't up yet. After you've passed that mark, players can stay on or come off the DL at any point.

And yes, I agree that this would probably take some serious programming effort. It's for that reason that I don't usually pull for major changes to the game engine, but this is one that I feel like the game would benefit from immensely.

[blasek0]

Also, wouldn't it be neat if we could change the duration of the 60-day DL? We can change the duration of the 15-day DL used in the majors, as well as the minor league DLs, but can't alter the duration of the 60-day DL (or eliminate either of them! that could be interesting)

[jazzrack]

this thread reminded me of an interview with sid meier I was reading the other day

What’s the next big thing for strategy games? Is it something like getting lots of people together playing a strategy game at once? Is it more about accessibility, like getting on other platforms? Is it creating the biggest, most epic grand strategy game in the world?

We actually have a philosophy in terms of Civ—that with every new feature we put in, we need to take something else out. We think it’s reached the appropriate level of epicness and grandness, and going beyond that is going too far, in terms of complexity or length of play.

Back when I was young, we used to make flight simulators. They kept getting more and more complicated. The cockpit started taking over more and more of the screen, and what you saw outside got less and less. With every generation… There were some great games, like the Falcon series. But with every generation, some people said, this is getting to be too much for me, I won’t buy it anymore. Eventually it just out-complexified itself.

What we want to do is avoid that with Civ. We think we’ve found a good balance of playability, depth and complexity. With Civ, we’re actually deliberately keeping the complexity at the current level, because that seems to be what people enjoy. So I don’t think the future is a super grand awesomely complex game. That’s not something that we think makes sense for our players.

sorry I realized I didn't leave the link

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/12/26/si...trategy-games/

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

this thread reminded me of an interview with sid meier I was reading the other day


sorry I realized I didn't leave the link

Sid Meier interview: Ace Patrol, Civ's evolution, and the future of strategy games | PC Gamer

I don't agree with Sid on this at all. Just saying. I don't think adding a new feature or adding complexity is a bad thing, if you're building on a system that's already in place. Look what Sid himself has done with the Civ V game - they started with the core game that hasn't changed since release. They then came out with a DLC that added a Religion aspect and a whole bunch of new choices to complement the existing features. Then a while later, they released another DLC that added Trade Routes and a Global Council, as well as even more new decisions and choices in the existing gameplay. Civ V as it stands now (with both the Gods & Kings and the Brave New World DLCs) is infinitely more complex than it was at release, and they didn't have to take anything out to get there; it still plays the same way it always has, just with a ton of different features and choices. So, as much as I love Sid and his games, I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with him here. Complexity is a good thing, as long as the core of the game remains easy to pick up and play. Civ V is a perfect example of this.

One aspect of his point is valid - you have to know when to stop. There most certainly is a point where the core of a game gets simply too complicated. But as long as you keep that core running as simple and smooth as it always has (as OOTP has pretty much done through every iteration of the game), you're good. And besides, I think we're a long way from that saturation threshold with OOTP, anyway.

[Snarf054]

Except that Civ V would have been made with Sid's concept in mind so it shouldn't be too complex. However, it can get that way. There are a few mods that I have played with that the tech tree was so absolutely humongous there was no way you could ever research them all even if you wanted to. So there is a point at which things can get too complex. I don't see this as an issue with OOTP because the developers almost never force things on you. Almost every little thing is optional. You can go as complex or as simple as you want to be. The only problem you can run into, even with the optional approach, is having so many options you can get lost trying to figure out how to get the results you want with all of them. I am sure I am not the only one that has had to delete a league and start over a few times before I got what I was trying to get.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by blasek0

Also, wouldn't it be neat if we could change the duration of the 60-day DL? We can change the duration of the 15-day DL used in the majors, as well as the minor league DLs, but can't alter the duration of the 60-day DL (or eliminate either of them! that could be interesting)

The 'emergency' or 60-day DL (which allows a player on it to no longer count against the 40-man roster) has always been that length. What has changed over MLB's history is the length and number of the 'regular' DLs.

There was in the late 1980s three regular DLs: a 21-day DL with a limit of three players that could be on it at any given time; a 15-day DL with a limit of two players (only one of which could be a pitcher); and a 30-day DL that could only be used when the prior two were full. After the 1990 season the rules were simplified to the current single 15-day 'regular' DL.

In terms of recreating the rules from earlier days, it would be nice to be able to turn off the 'regular' DL and only have the 60-day DL. This mimics the early days of the 20th century when there was no DL, and any player injured for a long period of time would voluntarily retire (which has a minimum length of 60 days before the player could be reinstated). For shorter term injuries the club would either have to make do with fewer healthier players on the active roster or assign or release the injured player and bring in a replacement.

[blasek0]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

The 'emergency' or 60-day DL (which allows a player on it to no longer count against the 40-man roster) has always been that length. What has changed over MLB's history is the length and number of the 'regular' DLs.

Not wanting the change for any sort of historical accuracy, I only play fictional leagues within OOTP, I was just wanting it for the sake of a change for fun. I like changing the environment for no real reason other than I can.

[thehef]

I would like to see - at least as an option - the digital injuries displayed as how the information would be relayed from the doc. For example: "He's got a pretty bad high ankle sprain and he's definitely out for a week, then we'll re-evaluate. Expect him to miss at least two weeks, though." This would be the same as what we currently see as "OUT" and duration being maybe "two weeks."

Then, at some point the status could change to "He's improving but he's still out for a few more days, at least" (OUT, duration = approx 3 days). Then perhaps a few days later, "He can play but he's not close to 100%. I'd hold him out a few more days, maybe use him for pinch-hitting only, if you have to" (Day-to-day, approx 60%, duration approx one week). Then maybe, "He's good to go. Be careful with him, though" (DtD, approx 90%, duration approx one week). Finally, he changes to "healthy."

(The above example could of course twist in a different direction, where at some point the player encounters a setback.)

Just an example, but you get the idea. I don't think it would involve much change in coding, just in how the results of the programming are output. (Perhaps it would involve some coding changes to accommodate more-variableness in duration, etc., which is already being requested anyway.)

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by thehef

I would like to see - at least as an option - the digital injuries displayed as how the information would be relayed from the doc. For example: "He's got a pretty bad high ankle sprain and he's definitely out for a week, then we'll re-evaluate. Expect him to miss at least two weeks, though." This would be the same as what we currently see as "OUT" and duration being maybe "two weeks."

Then, at some point the status could change to "He's improving but he's still out for a few more days, at least" (OUT, duration = approx 3 days). Then perhaps a few days later, "He can play but he's not close to 100%. I'd hold him out a few more days, maybe use him for pinch-hitting only, if you have to" (Day-to-day, approx 60%, duration approx one week). Then maybe, "He's good to go. Be careful with him, though" (DtD, approx 90%, duration approx one week). Finally, he changes to "healthy."

(The above example could of course twist in a different direction, where at some point the player encounters a setback.)

Just an example, but you get the idea. I don't think it would involve much change in coding, just in how the results of the programming are output. (Perhaps it would involve some coding changes to accommodate more-variableness in duration, etc., which is already being requested anyway.)

I really like this idea. Much less of an overhaul to the current system, but still with enough variables to make a noticeable difference.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by jazzrack

this thread reminded me of an interview with sid meier I was reading the other day


sorry I realized I didn't leave the link

Sid Meier interview: Ace Patrol, Civ's evolution, and the future of strategy games | PC Gamer

Well, Sid's finally lost his mind.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

I really like this idea. Much less of an overhaul to the current system, but still with enough variables to make a noticeable difference.

Me, too - as long as it's an option.

[Fyrestorm3]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Me, too - as long as it's an option.

Of course. We already have the option to turn on/off delayed injury reports, so I don't think an option to switch between hard numbers and estimates would be out of the question.