|
||||
|
|
Suggestions for Future OOTP Versions Post suggestions for the next version of Out of the Park Baseball here! |
|
Thread Tools |
07-23-2013, 03:32 PM | #21 | |
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,928
|
Quote:
Speaking as someone from the Boston area, a lot of people were actually UNHAPPY that David Ortiz has been constantly re-signed and re-signed. There are plenty of people who would have been fine with seeing him chase the money elsewhere. I'm not saying that what you claim isn't true in a lot of cases. But it's not a steadfast rule. |
|
07-23-2013, 03:39 PM | #22 |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 678
|
Maybe there's another option here. Maybe the AI could trade an "entrenched player", subject to commissioner's approval. The user would get a personal message asking for approval of the trade.
I would be able to say OK, the Braves would never have traded Jones under other circumstances, but looking at what the Cardinals are offering, the Braves not only couldn't turn it down, but their fans would have accepted that deal. But, we'd also have an option where we can look at a deal and say there is just no way that the fans would have accepted that offer, even though that is really all he can bring back in a trade when looking at OOTP ratings. |
07-23-2013, 03:44 PM | #23 | |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 678
|
Quote:
One of the keys to the entrenched player feature would be user's discretion. |
|
07-23-2013, 04:01 PM | #24 | |
All Star Reserve
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 678
|
Quote:
I do like the idea of limiting it to the duration of his current contract. But, maybe also have the user get an end of the season message saying the following players have had their entrenched player feature expire: ___, ____, ... Then, the user would be able to exert discretion on who to continue the entrenchment under a new contract and who to let it lapse and just let OOTP world be OOTP world. |
|
07-23-2013, 07:21 PM | #25 |
OOTP Developer
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Here and there
Posts: 14,127
|
I think there needs to me more weight when valuing a player with their local popularity, and that value should fluctuate heavily. It should start out as low for anyone who starts out with a new team, but have a few more points to it:
-The longer he is with the team, the more it goes up. -The better he does with a team, it goes up And then certain players (the entrenched ones) should basically have that be when their popularity maxes out, and at that point, the team should basically treat them with reverence. Now, it shouldn't completely overrule everything - I mean, I'm sure if 2 years ago LA went and offered Trout to the Braves for Jones, they would likely have to pull the trigger on that. But barring an offer that ridiculous, they should not be movable. Even to the point of basically having the owner "veto" the transaction. I've had players where to me I followed this strategy. I stuck with them through their contracts. My only flaw was occasionally when they got to be 37, 38, clearly on the decline, but they still want like 15-20M per year. Had they wanted 10, maybe I would sign them. But they wanted too much, so I let them walk. But that's true in some real life cases too - BB it hasn't been as much, but I know in hockey you always get those guys who are lifers with one team, and then play out their last year or 2 with someone else. |
07-26-2013, 12:40 PM | #26 | ||
Hall Of Famer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tampa Bay, Massachusetts
Posts: 2,928
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
Bookmarks |
|
|