Revamping Fielding in future OOTPs

Gastric ReFlux · 07-09-2003, 02:12 PM

Seriously, the way OOTP handles fielding is clumsy and out of character to the game's talent ratings for hitting and pitching. A lot more realism could be added by rethinking things and it would add another layer of depth to this game I already enjoy.

As I've thought about it, players really shouldn't have a fielding percentage attached to them. Instead, there should be a method by which the fielding percentage would be a result of certain skills each player has.

These are the skills I've thought of:

Speed: an important element to how many balls a player could get to, especially in the outfield positions. Likely to start out high when the player is young, and erode downwards as the player ages

Quickness/Reflexes: This one is trickier to define, but I would roughly put it down as something that the player uses to get a jump on the ball. Very important for 3rd basemen. This will also tend to go down as the player ages.

Softness of heads: a prime factor in determining errors like bobbled grounders and dropped flyballs. It would tend to be rather stable during a player's career.

Arm strength: Fairly obvious in its effect on outfielders and catchers. It would also have effects on the range factors of 3rd basemen and shortstops. It would also be fairly constant, but subject to going down if a player suffers an arm injury.

Arm accuracy: Just how likely the player will make a good throw for the play. Important determing factor of throwing errors, and it is something that could go up or down during a player's career.

Defensive awareness: this would be a measure of how intelligently the player handles the position, how well he puts himself in position for different hitters. This would be a key factor in a player learning a new position, and help to free us from the current system. Players could have a certain awareness level already at every position, and as they play and practice their position, it will tend to go up. Of course, some are quicker learners than others.

Some special stuff would need to be added to handle the freaky position of catcher, but a move towards something like I've outlined above could improve the current system of fielding being used by OOTP.

Riverdome · 07-09-2003, 03:27 PM

"Softness of heads"

Truely laughing out loud

You can keep your soft heads, I'll take a SS with soft hands.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-09-2003, 03:33 PM

Oops.

But yah, softness of heads would be good for outfielders prone to Canseco plays.

Henry · 07-09-2003, 03:35 PM

GR,

Just for the heck of it, what would you suggest if we limited the "ratings" to only 3 variables... what would they be ?

Henry

TLBOrioles · 07-09-2003, 03:35 PM

Repost from wish list forum:

I would like to see ONE rating system for the ENTIRE game. Specifically I'd like it to be the 0-10 (and sometimes 11+ for exceptional players) that's currently used for hitting/pitching. I think it would be easier for a new player to understand, and would probably allow some synergy on the coding side as well. Right now we have A-E some places, percentages other places, 0-10 and 0-20 other places, etc.

Steals? 0 - 10. Catcher arm? 0 - 10. Hold runners? 0 - 10.

If we want we can extend all these to the ratings/talent concept as well. Maybe your steal TALENT is Brilliant but your steals rating is 2 - so you need practice.

I'd apply this to your system as follows:

Generate numerical 0-10 ratings for the raw physical categories (Arm, Speed, Hands, etc.). Use a set formula internal to OOTP that determines the talent a player has at a particular position. Ex. the guy has a great glove and great range, but a below average arm, OOTP determines he can be a Good talent 2B. Then, as a player plays at a certain position, his numerical 0-10 rating for fielding at that position eventually raises to the level indicated by his talent.

How the player then performs in the field would be a function of his base fielding values for Arm, Speed, etc, and his numerical rating at the position he's playing. (Ex. a 7 rated 2B with a 1 arm is more likely to throw a ball away than a 7 rated 2B with an 8 arm). You can play a player out of position, and if his raw fielding ratings are good, that will make up for his 0 at 2B. Eventually he'll "learn the position" and that 2B rating will increase.

Thoughts?

Gastric ReFlux · 07-09-2003, 03:40 PM

Henry, I'm not sure why it's *3* variables, but I would roughly go with Speed/Quickness, Arm, and Intelligence/Awareness.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-09-2003, 03:43 PM

Except that would leave out the softness of heads and hands.

So I'm still stuck with at least 4 areas: getting to the ball (speed), throwing the ball (arm), knowledge of the position (intelligence/awareness), and handling the ball (hands).

Thanks for making me think of it in that way, though, but I can't really see reducing under those 4 areas that comprise fielding at the major league level.

Henry · 07-09-2003, 03:47 PM

The reason I asked GR was becasue from a programing standpoint, it might have to be compromised. The size of the database is always an issue, and letting it get too big causes other significant problems and risks.

henry

Gastric ReFlux · 07-09-2003, 03:54 PM

Okay, I see what you're saying, and it did serve to get me to think about it a little differently, as you can see from my previous post.

I would also like to point out that TLBOrioles has some good suggestions in the areas of how this could be presented to us, the users of the game. In the Suggestions forum, some said a change like this to the fielding system would cause too much grief and micromanaging. But that doesn't have to be the case if there's a good way of presenting the information, as well as decent AI to make decisions about how to handle players and their fielding talents.

The decent AI would be necessary of course for the AI controlled teams, but it would also allow the gameplayer to have the AI control most of the development. The user could then be allowed to make decisions about individual players if the user sees a need, like "Damn, I need a third baseman, maybe this guy could handle it."

KurtBevacqua · 07-09-2003, 04:00 PM

I think the three areas should be range, arm, and ball handling(or some other variable to denote the ability to catch or field the ball). This is one of those areas a game like Diamond Mind really outperforms OOTP in.

Crapshoot · 07-09-2003, 05:28 PM

Hmm, if we're working under the impression that its to be limited to three variables- lets discard speed- it is already taken into account in other things (such as Steals and Speed itself), so no need to add one specially for defense.
1. Arm strength- absolute neccesity- valid at every position; should be a factor in defensive switches, especially if it towards the right on the defensive spectrum.
2. Arm accuracy- Same as above.
3. Range- Some people can get to more- this should be a comibnation basically of Speed, awareness, and general baseball intelligence (an idiot would play Bonds in at 2nd )...

Heem Dream · 07-09-2003, 07:00 PM

Those sound good.
As the webmaster of the last surviving BBpro 98 support website (not league, there are a few leagues left, even though many have already made the OOTP jump, my site has files and a message board)

Anyway that was a topic for intense discussion, BBpro being ratings based would have had no problem incorporating a few more ratings like reaction time, hands and arm strength. But of course sierra quit very early and Mark rescued us

I do believe that those would help and would not be that hard to institute, and would make things a little more interesting.

kq76 · 07-09-2003, 07:02 PM

Good thread GR. I'd like to link our similar threads though. Mine is at: http://www.400softwarestudios.com/bo...threadid=39065

I think we want a lot of the same things.

clett · 07-09-2003, 07:49 PM

I think the idea TLB Orioles posted from the Wish List forum is the best idea yet, in all aspects. The idea of having stolen base, fielding, etc. talent and ratings is perfect, in my opinion.

Eckstein 4 Prez · 07-09-2003, 09:27 PM

Sheep's got a good point. I think that would be a big upgrade in the way defensive stuff is handled.

I also like "softness of heads." Sounds like the sheep's is a little soft.

Gastric ReFlux · 07-10-2003, 10:37 AM

Kq76, it's good that you linked to your thread in the Suggestions forum. We both were thinking along much the same lines.

I was still thinking about all of this last night, and have some further explication and extensions of the ideas.

Basically now, I've come to see fielding as composed of 4 elements. They are:

1. Getting to the ball
2. Handling the ball
3. Throwing the ball
4. Knowledge and awareness

The first three of those are the basic physical challenges of fielding. The first is all about speed and quickness, the second is about dexterity and coordination, and the third is about the strength and accuracy of a player's throwing arm. The last element, knowledge and awareness, is about a player's intelligence, how well he has learned the game of baseball, and more specifically how well he has learned the position he is being asked to play.

There is, however, something else that is important to this construct and I failed to raise the issue yesterday. A model along these lines would also need to define the positions and how they make demands on these 4 areas. For example, the centerfield position would make heavy demands on the speed and quickness, have some challenge to the strength of throwing arm but less accuracy than an infielder's arm, since an outfielder doesn't nearly as many times of needing to throw accurately to a base. Handling would be important, but again less so than infielders because the outfielder has time to get into position and mostly needs to concentrate on handling a fly ball. There would be some level of demand on knowledge, but again I think most often less than an infielder.

With that defining, we can see how it would be very easy for a centerfielder to move to right field or left field. The knowledge element between those three positions is very similar, and so long as the player has the basic speed and quickness, he should have little trouble moving from center field to another outfield position. However, someone who is being used in left field because of a lack of speed, would suffer greatly in a move to center field.

So now we would have a way of handling this better, and removing the rather ridiculous trouble that people can have in trying to change a center fielder to left or right field. Currently, the game works around this by sometimes assigning multiple positions, but that's an ad-hoc solution at best. Or sometimes the gamer has to go in and make edits to achieve a reasonable solution.

Now, I also thought of another added benefit that could be implemented with a revised fielding system. Currently, fielding percentage is achieved by giving players just that, but this wouldn't need to be done anymore. Instead, a league's base fielding percentage could be set at the league level, through the league totals screen. This would give the user the ability to simulate the older historical eras when the gloves were quite different.

As I've thought about all this, we shouldn't underestimate that this would be a major overhaul. Recoding this area could be a major task to achieve reasonable results.

Is it necessary? No. Would it be more in line with the current system to handle hitting and pitching? Yes.

MTGian · 07-10-2003, 12:17 PM

Greetings,

I absolutely love these type of threads. I think striving for improvement is of utmost importance whether it be for a person or for a game. I also think this is a great idea.

That said, unless Markus is interested, this is all so much wasted breath. I have seen the most fabulous of ideas that have been discussed and honed by many OOTP veterans that have been completely ignored.

I am not trying to rain on your parade. Simply saying that you can throw this idea around for weeks until you have it down to an extremely simple change that would dramatically improve the game, but if Markus doesn't want to change the fielding, then the fielding does not get changed. So, unless there is any reason to believe that the up-and-up's are interested in doing something with fielding, I wouldn't go hog wild.

Can you answer that, Henry? Just wondering.

MTG

P.S. While I am on it, is there any way to get some feedback from Markus on what he does want to improve? He could tell us that fielding is on his list for the next version, and then we would know to go nuts with ideas. Otherwise, it seems we throw ideas around for nothing.

TLBOrioles · 07-10-2003, 12:23 PM

See my post in the other thread (Wish List) where I go into a lot of detail, reach very similar conclusions, and lay out a complete system.

Henry · 07-10-2003, 12:55 PM

First, let me start by stating I can't, and won't, attempt to speak for Markus. He will do that himself when he feels it necessary - but I do feel I can speak to your concerns about what may or may not interest him. It's also imprtant to note that Markus is the final word on what goes into, or out of, the game.

With that said, I believe Markus would entertain ANY idea that he felt would add to the game, without there being any detrimental effects (such as database size, performance, etc.). There are a number of variables, however, following an idea to completion. Here's just a partial list...

1. Is it a good idea ? (and does Markus like it?)
2. What are the options ? (or different ways we could accomplish this ?)
3. Is there a large number or small number of customers that want this ?
4. How does this idea stack up against all the other ideas ?
5. How much effort will this change take ? (weeks, months, year ?)
6. Is this better handled as a patch or a version enhancement ?
7. Will this be welcomed more by existing customers or new customers ?
8. What is the risk this change will "break" something else ?
9. Would this change effect minimum requirements ? (hardware, audio, video, OS ?)

Those are just a few that come directly to mind.

If you peruse the "Wish List" and related threads, you quickly come to the conclusion that there are hundreds of ideas that have to be weeded through and prioritized. This is an ongoing process.

What 400 Studios has to be careful of is setting "expectations". Some of you have already seen threads about what was "promised" or what was not... In truth, there isn't too much you can say much before the game is released and your 99% sure of what got in and what really works (the bmp/jpg issue surfaces here). To do otherwise results in the "promised" expectations.

It would be very dangerous - during the early stages of discussion - to suggest in any way that this was going to be included in the game. Too much is going to happen between now and next March/April to be making commitments this early.

Ok, now the good news...

I firmly believe that Markus considers everything we post here. I'm sure he has his own "wish list" and some of our ideas never make it to his work table because he has too many other things in front of it. But I am sure he at least considers it.

Our job (all of us) is to develop those ideas the best we know how and attempt to convince Markus that these are good ideas. If we do our job right, he'll pay attention (look at what he did this year about Trading).

I don't know where "Fielding" sits on Markus' list, but I'm sure if he's convinced it's a "good idea" he'll at some point do something about it

Gastric ReFlux · 07-10-2003, 01:01 PM

No problems with that Henry. I'm aware there are constraints regarding ease and necessity, and things can be tough when there are so many things that different people want.

But at least it's kind of fun to kick these ideas around, and I actually enjoyed thinking about this all.

I mean we won't get perfect baseball simulators until the day we can purchase our own planets and be able to grow our own genetic replicas of baseball players.

That's a few years away.

07-09-2003, 02:12 PM	#1
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Revamping Fielding in future OOTPs Seriously, the way OOTP handles fielding is clumsy and out of character to the game's talent ratings for hitting and pitching. A lot more realism could be added by rethinking things and it would add another layer of depth to this game I already enjoy. As I've thought about it, players really shouldn't have a fielding percentage attached to them. Instead, there should be a method by which the fielding percentage would be a result of certain skills each player has. These are the skills I've thought of: Speed: an important element to how many balls a player could get to, especially in the outfield positions. Likely to start out high when the player is young, and erode downwards as the player ages Quickness/Reflexes: This one is trickier to define, but I would roughly put it down as something that the player uses to get a jump on the ball. Very important for 3rd basemen. This will also tend to go down as the player ages. Softness of heads: a prime factor in determining errors like bobbled grounders and dropped flyballs. It would tend to be rather stable during a player's career. Arm strength: Fairly obvious in its effect on outfielders and catchers. It would also have effects on the range factors of 3rd basemen and shortstops. It would also be fairly constant, but subject to going down if a player suffers an arm injury. Arm accuracy: Just how likely the player will make a good throw for the play. Important determing factor of throwing errors, and it is something that could go up or down during a player's career. Defensive awareness: this would be a measure of how intelligently the player handles the position, how well he puts himself in position for different hitters. This would be a key factor in a player learning a new position, and help to free us from the current system. Players could have a certain awareness level already at every position, and as they play and practice their position, it will tend to go up. Of course, some are quicker learners than others. Some special stuff would need to be added to handle the freaky position of catcher, but a move towards something like I've outlined above could improve the current system of fielding being used by OOTP.

07-09-2003, 03:27 PM	#2
Riverdome All Star Reserve Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 964	"Softness of heads" Truely laughing out loud You can keep your soft heads, I'll take a SS with soft hands. __________________ I was at the first OOTP Conference, where were you?..........

07-09-2003, 04:00 PM	#10
KurtBevacqua Hall Of Famer Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,968	I think the three areas should be range, arm, and ball handling(or some other variable to denote the ability to catch or field the ball). This is one of those areas a game like Diamond Mind really outperforms OOTP in. __________________ "The type and formula of most schemes of philanthropy or humanitarianism is this: A and B put their heads together to decide what C shall be made to do for D. The radical vice of all these schemes, from a sociological point of view, is that C is not allowed a voice in the matter, and his position, character, and interests, as well as the ultimate effects on society through C's interests, are entirely overlooked. I call C the Forgotten Man" - William Graham Sumner

07-09-2003, 05:28 PM	#11
Crapshoot Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: watching: DArwin's missing link in action Posts: 3,112	Hmm, if we're working under the impression that its to be limited to three variables- lets discard speed- it is already taken into account in other things (such as Steals and Speed itself), so no need to add one specially for defense. 1. Arm strength- absolute neccesity- valid at every position; should be a factor in defensive switches, especially if it towards the right on the defensive spectrum. 2. Arm accuracy- Same as above. 3. Range- Some people can get to more- this should be a comibnation basically of Speed, awareness, and general baseball intelligence (an idiot would play Bonds in at 2nd )... __________________ Senior Senor Member of the OOTP Boards Pittsburgh Playmates- OTBL

07-09-2003, 07:00 PM	#12
Heem Dream Registered User Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 38	Those sound good. As the webmaster of the last surviving BBpro 98 support website (not league, there are a few leagues left, even though many have already made the OOTP jump, my site has files and a message board) Anyway that was a topic for intense discussion, BBpro being ratings based would have had no problem incorporating a few more ratings like reaction time, hands and arm strength. But of course sierra quit very early and Mark rescued us I do believe that those would help and would not be that hard to institute, and would make things a little more interesting. __________________ "I am known as "CAT" in the BBpro Universe" <i>not that it matters</i> <a href="http://catspitz.net/index.php">CAT'S BBPRO 98 UNIVERSE</a> <b>I played BBpro98 exclusively as long as I could, I guess I was just stubborn!!</b>

07-09-2003, 03:33 PM	#3
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Oops. But yah, softness of heads would be good for outfielders prone to Canseco plays.

07-09-2003, 03:35 PM	#4
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	GR, Just for the heck of it, what would you suggest if we limited the "ratings" to only 3 variables... what would they be ? Henry

07-09-2003, 03:35 PM	#5
TLBOrioles Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 188	Repost from wish list forum: I would like to see ONE rating system for the ENTIRE game. Specifically I'd like it to be the 0-10 (and sometimes 11+ for exceptional players) that's currently used for hitting/pitching. I think it would be easier for a new player to understand, and would probably allow some synergy on the coding side as well. Right now we have A-E some places, percentages other places, 0-10 and 0-20 other places, etc. Steals? 0 - 10. Catcher arm? 0 - 10. Hold runners? 0 - 10. If we want we can extend all these to the ratings/talent concept as well. Maybe your steal TALENT is Brilliant but your steals rating is 2 - so you need practice. I'd apply this to your system as follows: Generate numerical 0-10 ratings for the raw physical categories (Arm, Speed, Hands, etc.). Use a set formula internal to OOTP that determines the talent a player has at a particular position. Ex. the guy has a great glove and great range, but a below average arm, OOTP determines he can be a Good talent 2B. Then, as a player plays at a certain position, his numerical 0-10 rating for fielding at that position eventually raises to the level indicated by his talent. How the player then performs in the field would be a function of his base fielding values for Arm, Speed, etc, and his numerical rating at the position he's playing. (Ex. a 7 rated 2B with a 1 arm is more likely to throw a ball away than a 7 rated 2B with an 8 arm). You can play a player out of position, and if his raw fielding ratings are good, that will make up for his 0 at 2B. Eventually he'll "learn the position" and that 2B rating will increase. Thoughts?

07-09-2003, 03:40 PM	#6
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Henry, I'm not sure why it's 3 variables, but I would roughly go with Speed/Quickness, Arm, and Intelligence/Awareness.

07-09-2003, 03:43 PM	#7
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Except that would leave out the softness of heads and hands. So I'm still stuck with at least 4 areas: getting to the ball (speed), throwing the ball (arm), knowledge of the position (intelligence/awareness), and handling the ball (hands). Thanks for making me think of it in that way, though, but I can't really see reducing under those 4 areas that comprise fielding at the major league level.

07-09-2003, 03:47 PM	#8
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	The reason I asked GR was becasue from a programing standpoint, it might have to be compromised. The size of the database is always an issue, and letting it get too big causes other significant problems and risks. henry

07-09-2003, 03:54 PM	#9
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Okay, I see what you're saying, and it did serve to get me to think about it a little differently, as you can see from my previous post. I would also like to point out that TLBOrioles has some good suggestions in the areas of how this could be presented to us, the users of the game. In the Suggestions forum, some said a change like this to the fielding system would cause too much grief and micromanaging. But that doesn't have to be the case if there's a good way of presenting the information, as well as decent AI to make decisions about how to handle players and their fielding talents. The decent AI would be necessary of course for the AI controlled teams, but it would also allow the gameplayer to have the AI control most of the development. The user could then be allowed to make decisions about individual players if the user sees a need, like "Damn, I need a third baseman, maybe this guy could handle it."

07-09-2003, 07:02 PM	#13
kq76 Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 12,089	Good thread GR. I'd like to link our similar threads though. Mine is at: http://www.400softwarestudios.com/bo...threadid=39065 I think we want a lot of the same things. __________________ My OOTP Wishlist \| My FAQ List OOTP Wiki \| Your Recommended Team Nicknames, By City (A Crowdsourced Project) For Beta/Devs: Full screen (1920x1080)

07-09-2003, 07:49 PM	#14
clett Minors (Single A) Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: SoCal Posts: 62	I think the idea TLB Orioles posted from the Wish List forum is the best idea yet, in all aspects. The idea of having stolen base, fielding, etc. talent and ratings is perfect, in my opinion.

07-09-2003, 09:27 PM	#15
Eckstein 4 Prez Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: The OC Posts: 6,358	Sheep's got a good point. I think that would be a big upgrade in the way defensive stuff is handled. I also like "softness of heads." Sounds like the sheep's is a little soft. __________________ Looking for an insomnia cure? Check out my dynasty thread, The Dawn of American Professional Base Ball, 1871.

07-10-2003, 10:37 AM	#16
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	Kq76, it's good that you linked to your thread in the Suggestions forum. We both were thinking along much the same lines. I was still thinking about all of this last night, and have some further explication and extensions of the ideas. Basically now, I've come to see fielding as composed of 4 elements. They are: 1. Getting to the ball 2. Handling the ball 3. Throwing the ball 4. Knowledge and awareness The first three of those are the basic physical challenges of fielding. The first is all about speed and quickness, the second is about dexterity and coordination, and the third is about the strength and accuracy of a player's throwing arm. The last element, knowledge and awareness, is about a player's intelligence, how well he has learned the game of baseball, and more specifically how well he has learned the position he is being asked to play. There is, however, something else that is important to this construct and I failed to raise the issue yesterday. A model along these lines would also need to define the positions and how they make demands on these 4 areas. For example, the centerfield position would make heavy demands on the speed and quickness, have some challenge to the strength of throwing arm but less accuracy than an infielder's arm, since an outfielder doesn't nearly as many times of needing to throw accurately to a base. Handling would be important, but again less so than infielders because the outfielder has time to get into position and mostly needs to concentrate on handling a fly ball. There would be some level of demand on knowledge, but again I think most often less than an infielder. With that defining, we can see how it would be very easy for a centerfielder to move to right field or left field. The knowledge element between those three positions is very similar, and so long as the player has the basic speed and quickness, he should have little trouble moving from center field to another outfield position. However, someone who is being used in left field because of a lack of speed, would suffer greatly in a move to center field. So now we would have a way of handling this better, and removing the rather ridiculous trouble that people can have in trying to change a center fielder to left or right field. Currently, the game works around this by sometimes assigning multiple positions, but that's an ad-hoc solution at best. Or sometimes the gamer has to go in and make edits to achieve a reasonable solution. Now, I also thought of another added benefit that could be implemented with a revised fielding system. Currently, fielding percentage is achieved by giving players just that, but this wouldn't need to be done anymore. Instead, a league's base fielding percentage could be set at the league level, through the league totals screen. This would give the user the ability to simulate the older historical eras when the gloves were quite different. As I've thought about all this, we shouldn't underestimate that this would be a major overhaul. Recoding this area could be a major task to achieve reasonable results. Is it necessary? No. Would it be more in line with the current system to handle hitting and pitching? Yes.

07-10-2003, 12:17 PM	#17
MTGian Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 233	Greetings, I absolutely love these type of threads. I think striving for improvement is of utmost importance whether it be for a person or for a game. I also think this is a great idea. That said, unless Markus is interested, this is all so much wasted breath. I have seen the most fabulous of ideas that have been discussed and honed by many OOTP veterans that have been completely ignored. I am not trying to rain on your parade. Simply saying that you can throw this idea around for weeks until you have it down to an extremely simple change that would dramatically improve the game, but if Markus doesn't want to change the fielding, then the fielding does not get changed. So, unless there is any reason to believe that the up-and-up's are interested in doing something with fielding, I wouldn't go hog wild. Can you answer that, Henry? Just wondering. MTG P.S. While I am on it, is there any way to get some feedback from Markus on what he does want to improve? He could tell us that fielding is on his list for the next version, and then we would know to go nuts with ideas. Otherwise, it seems we throw ideas around for nothing.

07-10-2003, 12:23 PM	#18
TLBOrioles Minors (Double A) Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 188	See my post in the other thread (Wish List) where I go into a lot of detail, reach very similar conclusions, and lay out a complete system.

07-10-2003, 12:55 PM	#19
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	First, let me start by stating I can't, and won't, attempt to speak for Markus. He will do that himself when he feels it necessary - but I do feel I can speak to your concerns about what may or may not interest him. It's also imprtant to note that Markus is the final word on what goes into, or out of, the game. With that said, I believe Markus would entertain ANY idea that he felt would add to the game, without there being any detrimental effects (such as database size, performance, etc.). There are a number of variables, however, following an idea to completion. Here's just a partial list... 1. Is it a good idea ? (and does Markus like it?) 2. What are the options ? (or different ways we could accomplish this ?) 3. Is there a large number or small number of customers that want this ? 4. How does this idea stack up against all the other ideas ? 5. How much effort will this change take ? (weeks, months, year ?) 6. Is this better handled as a patch or a version enhancement ? 7. Will this be welcomed more by existing customers or new customers ? 8. What is the risk this change will "break" something else ? 9. Would this change effect minimum requirements ? (hardware, audio, video, OS ?) Those are just a few that come directly to mind. If you peruse the "Wish List" and related threads, you quickly come to the conclusion that there are hundreds of ideas that have to be weeded through and prioritized. This is an ongoing process. What 400 Studios has to be careful of is setting "expectations". Some of you have already seen threads about what was "promised" or what was not... In truth, there isn't too much you can say much before the game is released and your 99% sure of what got in and what really works (the bmp/jpg issue surfaces here). To do otherwise results in the "promised" expectations. It would be very dangerous - during the early stages of discussion - to suggest in any way that this was going to be included in the game. Too much is going to happen between now and next March/April to be making commitments this early. Ok, now the good news... I firmly believe that Markus considers everything we post here. I'm sure he has his own "wish list" and some of our ideas never make it to his work table because he has too many other things in front of it. But I am sure he at least considers it. Our job (all of us) is to develop those ideas the best we know how and attempt to convince Markus that these are good ideas. If we do our job right, he'll pay attention (look at what he did this year about Trading). I don't know where "Fielding" sits on Markus' list, but I'm sure if he's convinced it's a "good idea" he'll at some point do something about it

07-10-2003, 01:01 PM	#20
Gastric ReFlux Hall Of Famer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Member #3409 Posts: 8,350	No problems with that Henry. I'm aware there are constraints regarding ease and necessity, and things can be tough when there are so many things that different people want. But at least it's kind of fun to kick these ideas around, and I actually enjoyed thinking about this all. I mean we won't get perfect baseball simulators until the day we can purchase our own planets and be able to grow our own genetic replicas of baseball players. That's a few years away.